Anonymous
05 November 2011 at 13:43
i want to know what is diference between poa under registartion act and general poa.pls explain
Vinesh K Chhaya
05 November 2011 at 13:39
My Client had lodged suit for declaration and injunction for agricularual land of his HUF...Principal Civil Judge Rejected Exhibit-5. During the hearing of Exhibit-5 the opponent make transaction of suit property and make application to executive magistrat to enter his name on account of the sale deed. My client has submitted his objections there. And now he want to submit appeal in district court against order of principal civil judge for exhibit-5.. can he add another party as respondant in appeal who was not add as opponent in original suit?
Or can executive magistrare be added as respondant in appeal with pray for injunction against entry in revanue record?
Pls indicate related matters
siri
05 November 2011 at 12:56
Plantiff has 3 immovable property in same city(2 no's in same survey no and 1 no in another survey no).. Now my question is
1)whether plantiff can suit for declaration title for 3 no's immovable properties in single suit & permanent injuction against defendant whose is disturbing planriff peaceful enjoyment.Is it possible in single suit
2)In such case court fee is for 3 nos immovable properties or average of 3 immovable property..
Plz give ur valuable suggestions
Advocate.S.A.Siddiq
05 November 2011 at 09:58
A muslim couple illegally obtained exparte Guardianship order from District court. They are filed False application, False affidavit etc in court.
This position, After 9 years. The biological parents file the Removal of guardian petition (u/s 39 of guar and wards act) to the District court.
Than they filed Criminal complaint before J.M Court , u/s. 190 Cr.P.c r/w 419,177,199,200,209,465,406,341,506(1), 500, 211, 120(b)
The hon'ble JM direct the petitioner to file complaint u/s. 419,177,199,200,209,211 IPC to District court
I think above said sections are triable by magistrate. pl. give the correct direction .
mahendrakumar
05 November 2011 at 06:34
this query is out of curiosity.
Hope some previous presidents/members of consumer foras could lead/guide this discussion?
after the final argument stage,cases are generally posted for judgement on a future date.
before delivering the judgement,do all the members of the forum sit together and discuss the merits of the case and arrive at a conclusion? Or is it left to any single member alone?
due to heavy overload of cases,is it practically possible to go through all the documents of both the parties and give a fair judgement?
are these "forums" accountable to anyone for any inadvertent or deliberate lapses if any on their part?
apart from an appeal remedy,any inherent mechanism in the system to check the misuses?
Anonymous
05 November 2011 at 02:26
WHAT ARE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE?
AN INDEPENDENT DEED OF SALE DULY EXECUTED ON ORAL TERMS, BUT NOW THE DEFENDANT REFUSING REGISTRATION, CITING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSISTING AGREEMENT?
Advocate Rajiv Mishra
05 November 2011 at 00:06
Is an application filed U/o 9 R 9 C.P.C. within time limit can be cancelled, the plea taken is absense of advocate due to illness who was the pairokar also?
Anonymous
04 November 2011 at 22:42
a suit for specific performance,agreement betn purchaser and seller"s power of attorny holder. plaintiff did not make party Real owner. After 5 years plaintiff is willing to make Real owner party.What will happen?
Rajneesh Madhok
04 November 2011 at 22:25
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Complaint No. 53 of 2011
Date of Instt. 20.4.2011
Date of Decision: 14.9.2011
Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 (Pb)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant
Versus
1. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Licensing Authority-Cum-Overall incharge of Suwidha Centre, Phagwara
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-overall incharge of Suwidha Centres in District, D.C. Office, Kapurthala.
3. The State Transport Commissioner (STC) O/o The State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh.---------------------------------- Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINAT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
Before: Shri Surinder Mohan President)
Sh. Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
Smt. Shashi Narang (Member)
Present: Complainant in person,
Shri Harjit Singh administrative officer for opposite parties.
ORDER
Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied for renewal of the driving licence to the SDM –Cum-Licensing Authority, Phagwara on 7/11/10 and sought information under Section 4 of RTI Act under Proactive Disclosure about the fee to be submitted with the application. As per prescribed norms of the opposite party department, complainant deposited fee of Rs 30/- with opposite party No. 1 but the concerned official of opposite party No. 1 refused to accept the same and demanded Rs 450/- as fee for renewal instead of prescribed fee of Rs 30/-. That accordingly complainant deposited Rs 450/= vide cash receipt on 8/10/2010. That opposite parties have charged over and above the prescribed fee regarding which no reason whatsoever has been given by the opposite parties till date. Thus the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice against which the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed. Complaint is supported by an affidavit of complainant.
2. In reply it is pleaded that complainant applied for renewal of his driving licence in Form No. 7 and the other documents were completed by the concerned operator of Suwidha Centre. The complainant never requested the opposite parties to accept the fee of Rs 30/- required as per the norms prescribed by the department. In fact license of complainant was late for more than one year and he was to be charged the penalty for late submission of his driving license. In this manner fee was charged from the complainant as per Govt. law, rules and instructions. It is further pleaded that opposite parties are bound to charge the fee as prescribed by the Govt. from time to time which is being charged as per Govt. instructions. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to prove his case Ex. CA affidavit of complainat, Ex C1 application dated 9/11/10, ex C2 Copy of Form 7 dated 9/11/10, Ex. C3 snapshot of website for the fee. Ex C4 memo No. 322 dated 11/2/11, Ex. C5 grounds of appeal.
4. To rebut this evidence Ex. R1 Copy of rule 32 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Ex. R2 affidavit of Chaman Lal Sharma Clerk.
5. We have heard arguments of both the parties and perused the file very carefully,
6. The complainant argued that he has applied for renewal of driving licence to the SDM-cum-Licensing Authority, Phagwara on 7/11/10 in the Form 7 and the SDM-Cum-Licensing Authority directed him to deposit Rs 30/= in Suwidha Centre. At the Suwidha Centre, Mr. Ajay had thrown out application of the complainant and refused to accept the application. The concerned official demanded Rs 450/- as fee for renewal and complainant deposited the same and got the receipt of Rs 450/- whereas the prescribed fee of the department of Transport is Rs 30/-. The complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner who is overall incahrge of Suwidha Centre to supply copy of circular issued by the Department of Transport regarding the fee of Rs 450/- but he did not produce any circular in this regard. The charging of exorbitant rate of fee at the rate of 450/- in place of Rs 30/- is exploitation of consumer and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.
Representatives of opposite parties argued that the fee for
The renewal of driving license has been taken from the complainant as per the law, rule and instructions issued by the Govt. There was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties to the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Suwidha Centres providing services to the general public, the fee taken from them were charged as per the government instructions and rules. Rs 450/- have been charged where the work is computerized and laminated as per the government instructions and rules for renewal of driving license. The detail of the fee collected by Suwidha Centre is as under:
i) Renewal of driving license fee Rs 250/-
ii) Late fee for 1 year Rs 150/-
iii) Late fee for subsequent year Rs 50/-
-----------
Total Rs 450/-
It is admitted that at some places where driving license are renewed manually, the fee of Rs 30/- is charged. The opposite parties argued that no extra fee is charged from the general public except the fee prescribed for each work as per instructions and rules issued by the government. The complainant has suppressed the fact that his license was submitted late for a period of more than one year and the penalty is to be charged as prescribed under the rules i.e. Rs 150/- for the 1st year and thereafter Rs 50/- for each subsequent year. Suwidha Centre charged Rs 450/- as per the instructions of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The claim of the complainant is unjust and illegal.
We have considered submissions of both the parties. We are of the opinion that fee charged from the complainant by Suwidha Centre is just and according to the government instructions and rules if renewed license is issued vide Smart Card. The work of renewal of driving license is involved by the computers in Form No. 7. Suwidha Centre has issued receipt No. B 64070168 dated 8/12/10 which was given to the complainant with the remarks that complainant may collect driving license after ten days from the delivery counter No. 1. The fee collected by Suwidha Centre from the complainant is as per the instructions issued by the Punjab Govt. for the renewal of driving license. The complainant has not attached the copy of Driving License with his complaint issued by the opposite party. Under Form No. 7 the opposite party has issued the Driving License to the complainant after considering his application under From No. 7 Rule 32 since No 8A as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The opposite party has rightly charged the fee and issued the Driving License to the complainant. Keeping in view of the above, we reject the complaint of the complainant.
Copies of order to be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules and file be consigned to record room.
Announced Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
14.9.2011 Member Member President
=====================================================================================
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION
1. http://punjabtransport.nic.in/html/licence.htm It is specifically mentioned in the website and the details provided alongwith exhibits that the Fees Rs 30/- is being paid because the Form No. 6 is not available on the website and in the market as well. If we consider the fees details as per website Rs 200/- should be charged for Renewal Fee as per attached website details.
2. There is no provision of Late fee charges according to the Website. So whether the decision could be made when on so many representations no document as evidence could be provided by the opposite parties.
3. If we consider that in Punjab The Central Motor vehicle Act is applicable then the rules framed by the Central Govt is that Rs 250/- can be collected with the cost of Smart card. The cost of computerized chip is Rs Two hundred rupees. The Smart card is like the ATM Card with unique features. The Licence provided to the consumer was on a simple paper. Till the last day of argument it was proved and admitted by the President and members that the exorbitant Fees has been charged
4. In central Vehicle rules the late fees of Rs 50/- can be charged on the annual basis but there is no provision in Punjab Govt or Central Govt Transport department rules that the fees can be charged @ Rs 150/- for first year. How the decision was made without considering the evidences submitted.
5. Under Department of Transport Punjab’s rules Rs 250/- can not be charged.
6. No circular no guidelines submitted by the opposite parties even then the decision is in favour of OP. YEH HAI INDIA. I LOVE MY INDIA.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
suit for permamnent injunction
can we add suit for possession in suit for permanent inj.