SUBHASH SHARMA
05 February 2010 at 11:28
I HAVE RECD ONE BILL OF COURIER CHARGES FOR
SERVICE CHARGES RS. 10,000/-
SERVICE TAX RS. 1,030/-
TOTAL RS. 11,030
TDS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED ON WHOLE AMT 11,030/- OR IT SHOULD BE DUDUCTED ONLY ON RS. 10,000/- KINDLY SUGGEST.
THANKS/REGARDS
SUBHASH SHARMA
M-9891338895
Manish Kumar Gupta
05 February 2010 at 11:24
Dear All
Can anyone suggest/provide me the draft for
“Undertaking by the company for non-involvement, non prosecution of any of its senior Members in customs duty evasion cases”.
Thanx in advance.. please provide..
Manish
banke bihari sharma
05 February 2010 at 09:37
I would like to know that if an Investigation officer of a case resolve of matter between both parties then what is the improtance of a compromise written on a plain paper of on a stamp paper duly signed by both parties and witness.
Ganesh
05 February 2010 at 09:00
A person is accused under 307. He is out on bail but his passport is kept by the court. Almost a year has passed. the court has read the charge and the accused had denied it. the proceedings are going on. Now the accused requires the passport as he has to go abroad for few days. Will he get back his passport. Are there any guidelines by Supreme court regarding this.
I had asked the above question and Hon'ble Expert Sukhija has given me this answer that The accused can apply to the concerned court for permission to go abroad and return of passport.
First of all Thanks for the answer. But my query is regarding the case of Suresh Nanda Vs C.B.I. AIR 2008 SC 1414 ( Decided on 24/01/2008)
wherein it was delivered by the Hon'ble SC that
"The Hon’ble SC has further opined that the Passports Act, 1967 being a specific Act whereas Section 104 of Cr.P.C. is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that Section in the Cr.P.C. as regards the passport. Thus, by necessary implication, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing."
Is it applicable in my case
mahendrakumar
05 February 2010 at 07:36
a) Please define legal meaning of affidavit?
b)Is an affidavit required to be submitted at the time of filing any types of cases at all courts?
c) Is there any exemption to (b)?
d) what is the difference between a "declaration" and an "affidavit"?
No quick be answers please,deviating from the main queries please.
sachin
05 February 2010 at 01:14
Respected sir,
I'm a student,im in 8th sem BE.I staying in the rented room that comes in the 2nd floor.But the sub owner and 1st floor rented peopels forcing me to vacant the room without providing any simple reason and also sub owner behavieour is not at all good.I came to know that 1st floor peopels need that room for their's relations.But I have last exam in june.So I need the room till june which is near to college and also Im a local to city from 1998.So Kindly I requesting to suggest me about to stay in the same room till june. Thanking you
Anonymous
04 February 2010 at 23:44
i am a law graduate; practised in kerala for two years in 80s and then took up a job in a law firm overseas; now i would like to be a trademark agent in bangalore; do i need to register as a trademark agent? kindly advise.
Anonymous
04 February 2010 at 23:26
Hi All,
I have a query which I feel is very important for all citizens of the country and I am thinking of filing a PIL through "E-Filing" at http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/ I want the opinion of experts here, is it all right for me to proceed with below mentioned points for filing a PIL. Or something more is needed to be added or removed.
Reference: http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20100102/814/tnl-gurgaon-police-orders-submission-of.html and http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20091218/1053/tnl-gurgaon-police-to-verify-licensed-ar.html and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8756
By asking the affected licensed firearm holders to submit their firearms even when there is no valid case related to the misuse of firearm by them, I think following are being violated by government:
1) The very purpose of keeping a legal firearm for self protection is getting defeated.
2) By asking the legally owned firearms to be deposited, the right to self protection as allowed by Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code is getting infringed. And this very act of government by rendering the citizens incapable of effectively defending themselves, is a violation of right to life as guaranteed by Constitution's article 21.
3) By this order, the government by asking to deposit all legal firearms, is rendering law abiding citizens defenseless against random violent crime by terrorists and criminals. Government is indirectly saying that the citizens do not have the inalienable right to protect their life and property. Hence the violation of Article 21 of Constitution is confirmed.
4) Government is making an assumption that all legal firearm owners are prone to misuse their weapons, which is an affront to the law abiding citizens keeping legal firearms.
5) Government is making an assumption that terrorists and criminals are fully dependent on legally held firearms, whereas the data says just exactly the opposite.
6) The government is equating all legal firearm owners with criminals and terrorists, which is an affront to the law abiding firearm license holders.
7) The government is going against the very principles and objectives of Arms Act, on basis of which firearm licenses have been legally issued.
8) This order is against the spirit and objective of the ruling of Supreme Court for Right of Private Defense. Ref: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/RIGHT-OF-PRIVATE-DEFENCE-LATEST-SC-JUDGEMENT-DATED-15-1-2010/4237/ By taking away the means for self defense, how does the government expect the citizens to defend themselves from criminals armed with all manner of illegal weapons?
9) There are legal precedents wherein the Hon'able courts have held that the right of citizens to acquire arms to better defend themselves is equated with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Citizens right to protect their life and personal liberty is meaningless if they are denied the means with which to protect themselves.
10) This order completely violates the stated objectives of the Arms Act, which amongst others states as two of it's primary objectives to be “(b)(ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege; and (iii) that firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits.”
So two fundamental questions of law arise:
1) Under what "justifications" can the right to self protection of citizens, as allowed by Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code and the Right to Life under Article 21 can be infringed upon by taking away legal firearms which have been allowed by following the due procedures laid down by Arms Act etc.
2) What is the "justification" to disarm only and all those citizens who have followed the due process of the law to legally keep firearms for self protection? Is this order also going to disarm all the criminals holding unknown number and type of illegal weapons?
Any opinion of experts will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Naman
04 February 2010 at 22:23
Why gov. is not probhiting Raj Thakray under article 19(2). Can CJI do any thing.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
LEGAL HEIR
Madam / Sir
(1)Does the legal heir of a person have any right on the property of the person when the person is alive ?
(2) I would like to know if my wife inherits a property from her father's side, do I have any right on it as her husband, when she is alive.
(3) After her death the legal heirs mean her husband as well as her children
(4) Can you also let me know as to what is a legal notice
Please guide me.
Thanks