imteyaz farooquee
27 October 2010 at 09:30
Dear experts,
please suggest, can a Judicial Magistrate,Ist class's court try the cases of Electricity Act,while in new ammended Act (Electricity Act,2003) Special court ,not below the rank of Addl.Sessions Judge, can try and dispose of the cases ?
Namitabh Kothari (9930992660)
27 October 2010 at 01:26
Friends,
I need your guidance and advice.
whether at the time of filing of a complaint under DV Act on behalf of a wife, Verification is required?
What is required in verification ? Complainant required to state the complaint word by word or something else?
Do we need to give any verification statement?
What is exactly verification statement ?
does anyone has a draft of verification statement in such complaint, then please share with me.
regards
Anonymous
26 October 2010 at 22:17
Is bail bond(whatever amount may be in rupees)furnished before police/magistrate/court refundable???
Atul Kumar Khare
26 October 2010 at 19:46
(1) I took up a journey as per the ticket details are given below:
Ticket Type: Unreserved ticket with no mention of train and anything about the distance restriction.
Date of Purchase and Journey: 09/08/2010
From Itarsi Jn to Bhopal Jn in a 2nd Class coach of a Super Fast train.
Journey actually performed by Tamil Nadu Super Fast Express.
(2) When I alighted at Bhopal Jn, the Railway TC demanded penalty saying that a minimum 600 KM journey is compulsory in Tamil Nadu express and that I violated this rule by taking up a journey less than this distance, thereby rendering my ticket invalid and improper under Section 55 of the Railway Act.
(3) I refused to pay on the ground that there was no mention of distance restrictions whatsoever on the ticket and on the train. Moreover, no such information was displayed anywhere in the railway station premises.
(4) He then showed me the concerned rule at Page No. C-18 in Western Zone Railway time table which is reproduced hereunder:
"This Zone has imposed distance restriction on certain long distance and superfast trains, to restrict short distance passengers from boarding these trains and encroaching upon accommodation earmarked for long distance passengers. However, short distance passengers can be booked in advance on these trains to the extent of intermediate station quota. Ticket checking staff on the station or on the train can allow passengers to travel against vacant accommodation, irrespective of the distance restriction, provided the passenger is holding a journey ticket for or short of the station upto which accommodation is available. Distance restrictions vary from train to train and are applicable to certain section of the journey."
I still refused to pay the penalty saying that even this rule does not prohibit any person from taking up short distance journeys in so-called distance-restricted trains. Also, there is no mention of this rule on the ticket and elsewhere. On this, he replied that 'ignorance of rule/law is no excuse'.
Please guide me on the following points
(A) Whether my ticket is really invalid and improper under Section 55 or Railway Act.
(B) Whether the rule at above point no. (4) means that short distance journeys should not be made at all in the distance-restricted trains.
(C) If there is really a rule of distance restriction, is it not the obligation of railway to give such information at proper places such as on the face of ticket and display boards on trains.
(D) Whether 'ignorance of rule/law is no excuse' is applicable in my case? If it is, it implies that every passenger should read the Railway Act, and so many other rules before journey, even if he is going to perform his journey according to the ticket.
Thanks.
Ajit
26 October 2010 at 17:18
In bail application Which format of affidavit useful in high court. if any format available suggest it to me.
Anonymous
26 October 2010 at 15:20
A is working for Company B since last 30 months.
A is granted a loan to be repaid in 30 monthly installments - one installments for each monoth.
Revised verbal agreement for increase in remuneration.
A get hospitalised to to heavy work pressure, nut instead of helping him Comapany B stops his due payments in lieu of remuneration / perks entitled by him
A refuses to pay balance loan till his due payments are released.
Agreements arrived at after exchange of claims and counterclaims and cheques exchanged. Comapny B giving cheuqes in lieu of debts towards A and collecting cheques from A in lieu of balance loan by hastened installemnts for repayments of loan in 20 months, instead of 30 months.
B encashed cheques issued by A, and at the same time dishonetly stops payment of cheques issued to A.
A initiates procedure to file case us 420 and also u/s 138 NI Act - as B failed to honour the cheques issued.
A also instructs his bank to stop payment of PDC cheques of balance of loan - as they can not be considered debt - till his due payments are received from B.
Questions are
1. Can A succeed in his case against B u/s 138 (keeping in view that he has stopped payments of his legal dues after dishonour of these cheques)?
2. Can A File a suit under 405 - 420 as he was dishonetly induced to believe that he will receive his payments enabling him to make hastened payments of his loan installments?
If B files a case against A for PDC cheques - Can A make a representation that these payments will become payable - only after B pay his dues?
- based on similarity that Bank can't file the case against defaulter - if Vehicle is returned with valuation exceeding the balance loan.
Y Singh N Rajput
26 October 2010 at 11:55
A business associates say "A" managed pilferage of signed blank chequebook of his associate "B". "A" purchased steel wire rods from the stockyard of a public undertaking. On dispute wih "B" on some other ground, "A" fraudulently raised many bills on "B", showing the purchase invoice quanities truck wise. But the sale bill dates differ with purchase invoice dates and also the truck numbers are also different then the trucks in which materials were purcahsed. that is the sale bills are also shown as if it were sale from "A"s godown.
"A" has not produced weigh bride slips of the sold materials and also did not submit the purchased invoices.
It can be regarded as a bill to bill sale. ie.,quantities, dates of sale/purchase and truck number should be same for purchase and sale. But "A" has shown it as ex godown sale and on cross also confirmed it be x-godown sale on, ie.,sale on different dates and different trucks. In this type of sale quantiy truck-wise would never match with purchase quanities truck-wise.
Later "A" gets cheques bounced and filed a number of cases under section 138.
Please let me know chances of success of "A" in these suits.
Anonymous
26 October 2010 at 10:51
I am having a business of website development and hosting we have developed lot of websites one or two of our clients had flew away with investor money in their company for which we have developed website and hosted for them can police may proceed criminal conspiracy case on us how to protect our business and being not involved in any kind of criminal case because we have nothing to do with their business.Please help and advice.
Anonymous
26 October 2010 at 10:38
I M PREPARING FOR CLAT DIS YEAR. I WANT TO KNOW IN KASAB'S CASE THAT HERE IT WAS VERY MANIFESTED ON THAT DAY (26/11) DAT HE OPENLY FIRED ON MUMBAI POLICE AND CAUSED DESTRUCTION. AND NOW WHEN HE IS UNDER TRIAL N THEN WHY INDIAN GOVT. HAS GIVEN HIM A DEFENCE LAWYER. ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 22 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND DP'S PROVIDE FOR LEGAL AID BUT HERE IT IS CLEAR CASE OF HUGE MASSACRE THEN Y DEFENCE LAWYER IS AVAILABLE TO HIM INSTEAD OF PUNISHING HIM DIRECTLY BY COURT.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
sec.138 cheque return case by unregistered firm?????
I have a question that "" can an unregistered firm can file a suit for cheque return??? and i have filed a suit and now any quarry can about this matter... tell me about all regarding this...i need your help....please