s.subramanian's Expert Profile

Queries Replied : 5851

+ View Full Profile

What kinds of questions I can and can't answer?

My area of expertise

My experience in the area (years):

Organizations I belong to:

Publications or writing which has appeared :

Educational credentials:

Award & Honors:

sandip says : moot problem
sir i am final year student of law and no experience of preparing moot court. sir please help me for preparing the below moot problem. On january 1, 2005 one ramesh while he was travelling from bangalore to pune by chennamma express was detained at belgaum railway station by the railway police and a suitcase containing a sum of rs. 5,00,000/- was seized from him on the suspicion case under section 411 ipc read with sections 41 and 102 of the cr.p.c was registered against him. Meanwhile intimation about the seizure of money was sent to the incomce tax authorities at belgaum on 2nd january 2005. On 4th january 2005, the income tax inspector belgaum sent an information to the commissioner, income tax department, belgaum about the fact of possession of aforesaid amount by ramesh and also that he did not have any papers and document regarding the ownership and possession of the amount. the commissioner issued a warrant of authorization under section 132a of the income tax act, 1961 on the basis of which the income tax officer sent a letter of requisition to the station officer incharge, railway police belgaum requiring the station house officer to hand over the seized sum of money to him(incom tax officer) who had been aouthrized by warrant of authorization to receive it. Meanwhile the railway police after completing the investigation submitted the final report on 15th january, 2005 wherein it was stated that the money found in the possession of ramesh did not represent stolen property or property acquired from any offence. Ramesh moved an application before the railway magistrate, belgaum praying that the money which had been recovered from his possession, be returned to him as it was not required for the purpose of any enquiry or trial. he further relied upon the fact that the railway police had given a final report in his favour. In these facts and circumstances, argue on the application filed by shri ramesh on behalf of the applicatn as well as on behafl of the income tax department. please rply me on my email id patilsandip975@gmail.com

vijays says : HI
SIR ,

vinod says : section 138 ni act
Hi Sir, I am vinod, 25 years old i started business DS-TECHNOLOGIES (software company) all alone when i was 22 years old.In very short time my company grew to a level of 58 engineers (employees). I had 2 of my friends as working partners with no written agreements .1 year back the 2 friends whom i believed a lot cheated me to the core misused the company money made me completely bankrupt. Now i left with nothing neither respect nor money, they have en cashed nearly 40 lacs. I am not bothered about my loss. Now the problem is they have stolen 2 blank cheques signed by me , and started blackmailing me, finally they dishonored one cheque (8,25000/-) and filed a case against me under section-138 NI act. and now they are demanding 20,00,000/- to with draw the case and in case if i dont pay they have one more blank cheque by that will do the same as the previous cheque. Other than these 2 cheques no cheque dishonored in my account that is the only evidence i have with me, Keeping this evidence can i fight the case? Please guide me how to proceed with it.Do i have any possibility to teach them a lesson? Hoping for your valuable guidance

anil says :
hello sir how r u ? please help me to prepare my moot..........roshan had been employed by mrs.nisha sekhon,a resident of sector 8, chandigarh,as helper to wash her brand new year 2007 model uno car every morning, roshan would come to her house and collect the car key from her , take the car out of the drive way, wash it and then place it back in the house . on certain days, roshan`s brother nawaab (aged 19 years), used to do likewise when roshan would either be busy or sick . both the brothers were qualified drivers. on 29th december 2007 , nawaab rang the doorbell and collected car`s key from nisha. as he brought the car out , he was filled with an urge to take a round on the new car. he took the car for a ride to the nearby market in sector-8.in the market nawaab saw mansih. a friend of his. who was leaving for his hometown and proudly showed him the new car. mansih told nawaab that he could as well drop him at the bus stand , as he was carrying a lot of luggage . nawaab gave a lift to mansih and dropped him to bus stand in sector 43, chandigarh. meanwhile , nisha came out of her house . not finding her car and nawaab for quite some time . she raised the alarm, called the police and lodged a complaint of theft against nawaab . infact, she also stated that her purse containing rs.5000 in cash , was also lying in the car. while the police was still as her house , nawaab returned home on his own with the car in about 60-70 minutes time and immediately, the police took navaab in custody. the car was searched and nisha`s purse containing entire money was also recovered from the car. an FIR under sections 379/411 IPC was lodged ana nawaab was arrested. nawaab, who had no money to defend himself was allowed the services of an AMICUS CURIAE named Ms. tanya ratra . nawaab was however, allowed bail by Ld. trial court. but subject to furnishing surety worth rs.25,000, which he could not arrange, due to which he continued to be in custody. tanya is also to contest this order of Ld. trial court in the high court and is trying her best to get bail to nawaab pending trial , without furnishing surety. simultaneously day to day trial of nawaab began in Ld trial court . the prosecution engaged the services of a senior prosecutor named Mr. verma, who led his evidence and proved charges against nawaab by contending that persons like nawaab must be given exemplary punishments , as they had betrayed the faith of their employers and if such a disturbing trend was not checked, every day there would a spate of thefts , as hundreds of similar persons wash cars and do the house hold chores in the city of chandigarh. Mr. verma also opposed the plea of nawaab for grant of bail without surety . he termed such a situation as fanciful and totally unheard of in the criminal law. terming it as too farfetched , he argued that in that event there would be no guarantee for nawaab`s stay in chandigarh and he could flee . considering that he belonged to some remote village in uttar pradesh and in tha event , the trial could not be completed against him. argue either for nawaab or for prosecution, also argue whether or not the high court should waive off the condition of granting bail to nawaab without furnishing surety of rs.25000? also argue whether nawaab would be acquitted or convicted of both the charges , and what if at all should be the sentence imposed upon him. i am from prosecution side ..give me your reply from prosecution side and tell me the sufficiet point to prepare my moot as fast as possible...thank you sir

Malik_Arjun says : Bank Transaction
Dear Sirs, Please provide your expert opinion on my below query related to Joint Bank Account Transaction Clarification on operation of Joint Account Holder in Either or Survivors mode of operation if one of the first holder is out of country during that period who else can make self withdrawals as bank passbook entry it mentions as self. It has not mentioned the name of the person who has withdrawn by withdrawl slip and now the records are not available with bank being 7 years old record. And person who has withdrawn the other joint holder is deniying of his withdrawl. Your expert opinion will help me to prove my side that the second joint holder is the benefisher and has withdrawn the money in my absence. Hope you me assist me with the above query ...Malik

Click here to see all answered queries

Comment Please

Other LCI Experts

Rajendra K Goyal
Queries Replied : 53581

Raj Kumar Makkad
Queries Replied : 44370

Devajyoti Barman
Queries Replied : 34799