Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:45
DOEACC Society prints the following condition at the backside of the marksheet
The application of review must reach to their office within one month from the date of printing of the result.
Now in a case I saw, the result was printed on 2nd day of a month and it was posted on 26th.
The question is:-
1. Are they totally free to post the result as per "go as you" process? Can they post it after 40 days of printing?
2. As per the terms and condition, the time will be taken from the date of printing, so if someone receives the result after one month then there is no chance of applying for review. Who will take the responsibility?
3. Can a student ask for the copy of answer sheet from DOEACC (or any exam-authority) through RTI Act? Is there any process to prove that the authority is not sincere in valuation of the exam? (where they make dealy to prevent review).
4. Can a candidate apply for review on the basis of the result published in internet? DOEACC publish the result in their website with a declaration that there is no guaranty of correctness of the result published in internet.
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:42
I am appearing for the accused in a narcotic case and it is posted for final hearing.
Facts of the case is as follows :
Please guide me .
Offence u/s 20 (b) NDPS ACT.
ALLEGATION :-
Accused was found carrying 36 gms of ganja, in a plastic carry bag and he was arrested in a public place, on a casual search by the excice officials. ( no prior information).
Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, and marked 6 documents.
Pw1 and pw4 - arresting officers
Pw2 and pw3- independent witnesses, ( not supported prosecution story ) but they were cross-examined by the prosecutor, without declaring hostile. is it permissible ?
Pw5 – investigation officer
Documents :-
P1 – seizure mahassr
P2 –arrest memo
P3-consent letter u/s 50 ndps by accused , to be searched by the arresting officers themselves( stating that there is no need of magistrate or gazette officers)
P4-occurance rport
P5-property list
P6-chemical analysis report
P7-inspection memo
M.O WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, NOR MARKED.
BUT, THE PROPERTY LIST SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COURT, AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED IT ON THE SAME DAY…..WHETHER ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT IN THIS REGARD ?
Grounds, I believe worth noting are :-
NO M.O WAS MARKED
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ARE NOT OF THE LOCALITY
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, NOT SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION STORY
NO ENDORCEMENT IN THE ARREST MEMO , THAT ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS INFORMED TO HIS RELATIVES, BUT IT IS THERE IN THE P7 INSPECTION MEMO
PW 1 AND 4 SAYS THAT THERE IS NO COLUMN IN P2 FOR THAT. THAT’S WHY A SPECIAL P7 WAS PREPARED. BUT, AS PER DK BASU V/S UNION OF INDIA, IS IT NOT MANDATORY, TO INCLUDE IT , IN THE ARREST MEMO , ITSELF ?
NO REPORT U/S 57 IS MARKED. BUT SIMPLY STATED IN THE MAHASSAR THAT AFTER COMPLYING SEC 57, PROPERTY AND MAHASSAR WERE SENT TO COURT. IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
NO FOREWARDING NOTE WAS MARKED.BUT, ANALYST REPORT IS MARKED . IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
I am told that in NDPS CASES, there a lot of citations that before conducting search of an accused. The arresting officers has to offer their personal search to the accused, to avoid implanting of contraband articles.please give me any one of such citations .
Accused has signed in p3 consent letter. But, but p2 arrest memo bears accused “s thumb impression , not signature ! its legal consequence ?
Is sec 50 mandatory in cases or consent letter from accused , while in custody is sufficient ?
Ref : 2002(2)KLT 211 (SC)
PLEASE GIVE MAXIMUM CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS .
RESPECTFULLY,
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:26
certain retired employees of a corporation seek the enhanced ceiling limit of Rs 3.5 lac to Rs 10 lac as prescribed in the 6 pay commission . these employees are covered under central dearness allowance(CDA)
. some employees of the same corporation who are covered under induatrial deraness allowance(IDA) have been given the benefit of the above mentioned ceiling . it is said that for the IDA pattern no amendment is required in the Payment of Gratuity Act while for the CDA pattern an amendment is necessary. Correspondence was exchanged between the employees , the ministry and the PMO but in vain. Is there a case law to support the case of the CDA governred employees saying that the act of the corporation Article 14 of the Constitution of India ?
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:24
Hello,
I need to know regarding the holidays that both public and private companies compulsorily need to afford to their employees as per law, and the consequences or other benefits such as double pay or compensatory pay in case they fail to give these leaves.
Also if you can through some light as to how many and which are the national holidays and are private employers and MNCs under obligation to provide the same?
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:23
trust has got the rights to develop the garden in open space of layout within corporation area, ulternatively the trust is allowed to construct a meditation hall in the same garden. what is the legal position of a trust as far as owenrship is concerned. or the future problems may arise in smooth use of meitation hall?
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:22
Is anybody is aware abt Commodity Exchange of India.
A public listed company into manufacturing business wants to apply for the membership of Commodity Exchange of Inida. Can it do so. If so what compliances are required to be fullfilled.Few compliances come in my mind alike.
1. The activity of sale and purchase in commodity should be included in the main object or the company should get the main object altered.
2. The may also require to inform the stock exchange about its new line of business.
3. Approval of the Board of directors
If anybody is aware abt the concept and compliances involed pls share your knowlede.
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:21
Dear Sir/Madam,
My colleague has received a summon from Metropolitan court under PSS Act due to ecs failure. Please advice on the proceedings on the above act and how can it affect him.
Thanks
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:20
What is a leave petition filed by a company. When and why does a company file it.
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 15:16
Dear Experts,
There was an agricultural land with number 105 and area 0.902 Hectare on a road side in the name of Mr. KP. The said road connects two towns( Town A and Town B) of the same district of UP. Some 4-5 years back I bought a portion of the land (No. 105). The sale deed for the said portion measuring 0.135 Hectare, square in shape, mentioning the boundaries - in North - road connecting town A and town B, in East – land of X and others, in South – the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP and in West - the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP, got executed by Mr. KP in the name of my wife V on date D.
After the execution of the above sale deed, Mr. KP executed another sale deed for another portion of land 105 in the name of N on the same date D. The descriptions for the second portion in the sale deed to N, are: area 0.65 Hectare, boundaries- in North - road connecting town A and town B, in East – land of V, in South – the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP and in West - the land of Y and others.
After the execution of the above mentioned sale deeds, the sale deeds along with parties were presented in the office of registrar for registration on the same date D. N got its sale deed registered with registration number R1 while V got its sale deed registered later with registration number R2.
Last year one KSK dealership from IOCL was rostered in my village on road connecting the towns A & B. The land requirement was 70ft X 70ft for KSK dealership. There were three applications from V, K and R. All the three applicants were called for interview and the result was declared on the same date by IOCL. K did not qualify as K got 0 marks against land & infrastructure. V got placed first and R got placed second. And V was the selected candidate.
But on the next day, K filed a Writ Petition in HC against IOCL alleging that there was favouritism and IOCL has awarded 0 marks in arbitrary manner. Moreover, V, the selected candidate was not made party. WP was heard by the HC and HC order that there is alternate remedy available i.e. the IOCL grievance redresal authority. HC further directed the IOCL to dispose of the matter within 3 months. Thereby, K & R submitted their representation complaints to IOCL. IOCL (state unit GM) called V, K & R and heard them one by one. After hearing, the GM/IOCL constituted one committee to investigate the complaints of K & R. During the investigation the investigating Officer asked me to bring the original sale deed of V and N. The same were shown to the officer.
Finally, in compliance of the HC order, GM/IOCL took the decision on basis of the report submitted by Investigating Committee, and cancelled the selection and ordered re-interview. GM/IOCL dismissed the complaints/allegations of K & R and stated that on basis of the report from Investigating Committee, IOCL erred in awarding 29 marks for land & infra. to V as V has not submitted the consent from co-owners - Mr. KP and N, of land 105 along with the application. Not submitting consent is in the contravention of the IOCL policy, said GM/IOCL.
Now my question is that even if there are clear boundaries of V’s portion in land 105, V is not free to use it for any purpose. V has to take consent from Mr. KP and N?
Or another interpretation of GM/IOCL could be that since N’s sale deed was registered before V’s sale deed‘s registration, N becomes first co-owner with Mr. KP in land 105, then the boundary of V’s portion vis-a-vis with N’s portion becomes unclear and that is why V has to take consent from N and/or Mr. KP.
How much this interpretation is legally sustainable? Please advise me the remedy if any as there is no appellate authority in IOCL.
Please note that a land measuring 0.135 H, square in shape has dimension 120ft X 120ft while IOCL’s requirement is 70ft X 70ft.
Thanks a lot
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
judgement
Dear Sirs,
The following judgement copy urgently need
the case in madras highcourt.
Justie Samikannu awarded decision in the case of Vadalur konda Reddiar Vs Hindu Religious endowment Board that Vadalur Vallalar shrines
Case law
ple.send my email id saranaks@gmail.com