Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Anonymous   12 July 2011 at 15:37

full bench or consitutuional bench ?

1........ Single Bench
2.........Division Bench
3,5,7,9,11 & 13

in this which one is full bench & Consitutional bench can anybody tell me pls.

In High Court how many bench are there whether it may be orginial juridisction, criminal or civil in nature or appellate jurisdiction or writ matters .

Requesting the LD members to elaborate it if possible by the judgment give by the SC or the HC.

Thanks.

Anonymous   07 July 2011 at 23:41

Applied an application Section 5-a But section 27(4) correct

I( Vendee-DHR) filed a petition u/s 5 A of the act for regulation of an alienation, on the basis of a compromise decree, obtained in a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale(un registered) before the Mandal Revenue Officer. And after due enquiry and also after following the due procedure, the MRO has issued a certificate to that effect on my favour.

When the matter was carried before the Joint Collector (Revisional Authority) by other side who contended that “no notice was served on them before passing the orders and also further contended that the said DHR has failed to approach the trial court for registration of the sale deed and thus the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the case”. The Joint collector has dismissed the Revision Petition. Further he also relied upon the Rule 27(4) of the Rules with regard to implementation of court decrees.

As against the said order, the matter was carried by other side, before the High Court (Single Judge) by way of Writ Petition and the same was also dismissed.

When the matter came up before Division Bench of High Court, it was contented that

1. No regularization of alienation even based on a decree obtained in a suit for specific performance can be ordered under Section 5 of the Act.
2. An agreement of sale cannot be considered to be a document of “transfer” or “alienation”

and accordingly passed orders against me. And now the matter is pending before Supreme Court carried in a SLP.

The Act is as follows:-

Section 5-A Regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alinee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.

Rule 27 (4) of A.P.Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules 1989:-

Whenever a court decree about acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper or by oral purchase is received form court or presented to the Mandal Revenue Officer for implementing and incorporating changes in the Record of rights and Pattedar pass Book, the Mandal Revenue officer shall incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattedar Pass Book, based on court decree only after collection of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale price of the land or market value of the land whichever is higher. If the person seeking execution of court decree claims that he had already paid proper and adequate stamp duty in the court and produces certificate issued by the court to this effect and other evidence to the satisfaction of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall demand and collect only registration fee and incorporate changes in the record of Rights and Pattedar pass Books, If the decree is received or produced by or before a Registration officer or other Officers, these officers shall immediately send these decrees to the concerned Mandal Revenue Office for necessary action.

1.Application filed against section 5-a of R.o.R act. But it should have filed as per 27(4) of R.o.R act. Does my case can be considered as per 27(4) or it will be dissmissed as per section 5-a.?

Anonymous   06 July 2011 at 15:59

Repealing Act, 1870 ?

Repealing Act, 1870
"1. Repeal of Acts
Repealed by the Repealing Act, 1870 (14 of 1870),

But this Repealing Act, 1870 (14 of 1870)is not traceable.
What does this Repealing Act, 1870 is? Why it is said that it is not traceable? A I have tried in google but I cant find out the Repealing Act, 1870.
What does this Repealing Act, 1870 what to say?

I have came to know that if any act is been repealed then after repealing that act should be mentioned under this act.That xyz act has been repealed.

Eg: BCD act is repealed then this act after repealing should be mentioned under the Repealing Act, 1870 that BCD act has been repealed.

Thanks

Anonymous   05 July 2011 at 19:48

legislation by incorporation.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution was invented by Supreme Court. Pls post the doctrine here.

Subordinate Legislation means in simple terms.

Legislation by incorporation & legislation by reference a simple example & difference between them .

Thanks

Anonymous   01 July 2011 at 18:30

Sample writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution

Dear Experts, if any one of you could provide a link or upload a sample writ petition to Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution.

Anonymous   27 June 2011 at 21:44

Phone tapping Guidelines SC required.

Which section says that law enforcement agencies can tap phones for security reasons more than 72 hours without the permission of union home secretary or principal secretary (home) of state? What do u mean by inspector general rank officer? As this officer can give orders to do so.

But if they don’t get a nod form the top on the fourth day, they will have to destroy the call records within 48 hours of getting the response form the authority. But which authority? Which section says that they have to destroy the records within 48 hours if they don’t get the nod? Nod means the permission or approval?

Pls elaborate it & i have heard that there is a SC guidelines for taking the permission & each everything till destroying the call records SC has given the guidelines so can i have the guidelines.

Thanks

tarun   13 May 2011 at 16:19

medical board examination in a false cross case

respected members,
on my complaint a case us 148/149/323/452/506 was registered against accused persons, but on the same day accused persons inflicted some injuries on their body with friendly hands and got showed a fracture on the left hand index finder, got medically examined and a false cross case registered against us u/s 148/149/323/325/506, after about one month of the incidence (DDR was recorded on the complaint of accused persons on the next day of incident but false cross case was registered after about one month), POLICE AND ADDITIONAL S.P IS HELPING THE ACCUSED PERSONS, i on the next day of incident write, s.p of city and C.M.O of civil hospital that injuries are self inflicted, and once again after 15 days demanded for medical board examinations of accused persons, and after 5 months again demanded medical board and forensic expert medical examination of accused persons that injuries are self inflicted, but no action has been taken by S.P, CMO, DGP, IG etc on my application for appointment of medical board and forensic expert. now challan is yet to be presented against both of us parties in the court of JMIC, can i give an application before JMIC, before filing of challan by police for appointment of medical board ???? Can JMIC, give Directions to police before filing Challan for appointment of Medical board ??? is JMIC is competent to order for appointment of medical board for the examinations of accused persons to know that injuries are self inflicted with friendly hands or not ?????? plz guide, challan of police is yet to be presented

Anonymous   13 May 2011 at 13:31

Citations of Supreme Court

This query arose after reading the following thread http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Value-of-anonymity-in-true-democracy-36790.asp

It talks about 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

My question is do we have similar rulings from our Supreme Court protecting anonymous free speech and expression?

Anonymous   25 April 2011 at 21:09

Promissory Estoppel Applicable to any government .

OPINION Required in Depth If Possible With the Relevant Case Laws of SC Only.

1) SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Act cannot be changed by the Finance Act.
2) Invoking the theory of promissory estoppel according to which if a promise is made by the government in the shape of a notification or declaration and if the financial commitment is made I pursuance of the promise, there is no way in which the government can back out from the promise. So we can say that promissory estoppel is applicable to any branch of government or any state government & also to the central government.
3) The SEZ Act was made by the Commerce Ministry & not by the Finance Ministry so the finance ministry can’t change or amend any act which was passed by the commerce ministry. Is there any provision under Constitution Of India, 1949.


Especially on point no. 2 & 3 the case law is required & respected opinion is also required.

Thanks.

Lt COL R S shekhawat   21 April 2011 at 09:47

EXSERVICEMAN STATUS-- DOPT defination-injustice to HONRABALLY retiredTA officers with GRATUITY

statement of case for ;-
Grant of Ex-Service men status and ensuing benefits to Honorably Retired \released\Discharged officers of TERRITORIAL ARMY alike Non pensioner SSCO & ECO

The Member of the Territorial Army being integral part of INDIAN ARMY are subject to INDIAN ARMY ACT 1950 governed by - DEFENSE SERVICE REGULATION, Regulations for the ARMY, PENSION REGULATIONS 1961 .

Officers in the TERRITORIAL ARMY are holding commission ,granted by the president of INDIA with designation of Rank corresponding to those of Indian commissioned officers of the regular Army , Granted Gratuity on their honorable retirement\ Discharge\Release after 05 years of aggregate embodied service / or 10 years of commissioned service alike Non pensioner SSCO\ECO

Yet are not granted EXSERVICEMAN status
ON CONTRARY

Non pensioner Short Service Commissioned Officers .
are treated as Ex-servicemen, on their discharge with Gratuity after 05 year commissioned service. inclusive of their pre-commissioning training period as CADET.

Honorably retired officers of TERRITORIAL ARMY are awarded Gratuity at par with All retiree of Indian Army which constitute one class. It is not LEGAL to single out certain persons of the same class for differential treatment. Denial of Ex-Service men status and ensuing benefits has created a class within a class amongst ALL honorably retired officers without rational basis and, therefore, becomes arbitrary and discriminatory.

judiciously commissioned Officers cashiered\ court marshaled \ discharged dishonorably on disciplinary grounds from Indian Armed forces are denied of Ex-Service men status and ensuing benefits

as per ARMY pension regulation Part-I 1961;- Gratuity is an kind of pension However, honorably released with Gratuity from TERRITORIAL ARMY are excluded from consideration as Ex-servicemen without any valued reason

Existing definition, laid down by the Department of Personnel & Training(DOP&T), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, which has been in vogue since 01 Jul1987,
Ex-servicemen;-
;-Who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non- combatant in the regular Army, Navy or Air Force of the Indian Union but does not include a person who has served in the Defense Security Corps (DSC), the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), the Lok Sahayak Sena and the Para Military Forces

-The personnel of Territorial Army (TA) who are pension holders for continuous embodied service, persons with disability attributable to military service and gallantry award winners released on or after 15 Nov 1986 are eligible to status of ex-servicemen.

Pension & Gallantry award ;- are the compulsory criteria - for the personnel of Territorial Army to attain the status of Ex serviceman which can neither be assured Nor Guaranteed & seems practicably unfeasible abiding the Role\ service concept of Territorial ARMY

Denial of EXSERVICEMAN status to Honorably RETIRED (with gratuity ) officers of Territorial army is an open affront to their Reckonable embodied service rendered for national defense,& is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
services of Territorial army personnel in comparison to other Indian armed FORCES personnel is neither inferior nor services required by the Indian Armed Forces are superior to Territorial army

Indian Army is composed o those who have undertaken definite liability for military service, viz, combatant troops, administrative service/departments and enrolled non-combatants-The Army Comprises of-. The Regular Army; The Army Reserve

& The Territorial Army - Authority:-Defense service regulation

Definition of ex-servicemen:
Eligibility to the status of ex-servicemen of ex-Armed Forces personnel is governed by the definition of ex-servicemen issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions. The status of ex-servicemen of ex-Armed Forces personnel is decided based on the definition in vogue at the time of retirement/ release/discharge of the personnel.
The first definition of ex-servicemen had been notified by the DOP&T in 1966 and subsequently it was amended eight times.

Definition of EX serviceman As per the existing definition, laid down by the Department of Personnel & Training(DOP&T), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
which has been in vogue since 01 Jul 1987, an ex-servicemen means a person:
;-Who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non- combatant in the regular Army, Navy or Air Force of the Indian Union but does not include a person who has served in the Defense Security Corps (DSC), the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), the Lok Sahayak Sena and the Para Military Forces

services of Territorial army personnel when compared to other armed personnel is neither inferior nor services required by the Armed Forces are superior to Territorial army .
When this is the position, to deny the status of EXSERVICEMAN to Honorably RETIRED Defense personnel’s of territorial army is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
" Territorial army is an integral part of Armed Forces", for the purpose of Article 33 of the Constitution of India.
But the discrimination in grant of Ex Serviceman status

Therefore, this is submitted before you with a sole aim to bring the most genuine grievances of Honorably Retired \Released\Discharged NON pensioners\Gratuity holders of TERRITORIAL ARMY with in the purview of EXSERVICEMAN status at par with SSCO.


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query