Ram
03 November 2009 at 12:10
My Father in-law has property is in Tamil Nadu at interior village and died on the year 2000 after made all settlement thro' registered Will in which he has authorize to enjoy the all properties to his three sons leaving 2 daughters mentioning in Will that he had settled his 2 daughters by the way of cash and jewels during their marriages held all before the year 1989( i.e. year HSA amendment 1989 in Tmail nadu). So father in -law has indicated in his Will that no property was assigned for his daughters. The year of Will register is 1990 before which all sisters were got married. These property is in a Tamil Nadu. Regarding this property, my Father-in-law has acquired in his hand from his father by way of registered Will after dividing the 50% of his property( schedule B property) to my father -in-law and another 50%(schedule A property) to elder brother of my father -in-law and both families are not a joint family and resources were not put in common hatchpot. Please clarify whether daughter become co-parcener for these property or not as the act came into effect in Tamil nadu only on 1989 and 2004 in whole country. As per 1989 act in TN, married daughters are not coparceners . As per act 2005, all partitions and testamentary dispositions occured before 2004 are all valid. Also these two amendement act are only applicable two joint family. In this scenario, please my wife ( daughter) can claim the property right or not.
Now all property were in the name of her two brother only.
please confirm with applicable law
Himanshu
03 November 2009 at 11:44
Is it nessessary as per the law to have cleaner or assistant with the driver of heavy motor vehicle like truck, tempo or bus and if yes then under which act or rules or section number. Please give details of any one applicable state or city, we use our trucks all over India. Please Advice.
suraj guha thakurta
03 November 2009 at 11:24
sir, is it possible to make a gift with a condition, i.e. the donee can't sale it in future? if not then how i can restrain the donee from sale...
K.Ravichandren
03 November 2009 at 11:00
Can anybody suggest me the Law, rules and formalities(including any registration/Licences to be obtained) for the initiation of an online trading and advicertising company?
Prathamesh
03 November 2009 at 10:25
Hello,
In September 2009 i did a apartment booking in Alibaug by paying a token amount of Rs. 51,000/- (by cheque). However later when the time came for getting the property registered the clauses in the agreement where not acceptable to us as the same where in favor of the builder/developer. Hence we decided to exit from the project and requested for the refund of 51000/-. However the developer says the token will not be refunded as the receipt for 51k has a clause about the same. Does the law permit the developer to forfeit the booking amount by just placing a clause in the receipt? Please could you advise what course of action can I take for getting the refund? Also do let me know if any additional information is required.
Anonymous
03 November 2009 at 10:22
What is a procedure once a bail is given or rejected in sessions court.If the appealent moves to HC, can the police arrest him in between? Can he seek relief under any circustances to avoid arrest?
What could be the time frame of judgement in sessions court Or HC for A /B?
The complain is under sec 467, 468, 407, 420 112 - B etc.Today is he 40th day since the complain is been lodged.
Thyagarajan
03 November 2009 at 10:02
Dear Members,
An article posted by Mombi Grahak Panchayat blog that is given below is worth a reading by all members of the club. I am sure many of you will join hands with Mombai Grahak Panchayth in making a review petition in Supreme Court.
R.Thyagarajan.
Consumer Protection Act is in need of Protection
B.S.N.L.Calicut had, in August 2001 disconnected the telephone of one Mr. Krishnan due to non-payment of a bill of Rs. 17103/-.Mr. Krishnan pursued his grievance about the bill with B.S.N.L. but was unsuccessful. He filed a complaint before the District Forum (D.F.) Calicut.The latter by its order dt. 16-11-2001 directed B.S.N.L. to restore the connection and pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- towards compensation along with 12% interest.B.S.N.L. then moved the Kerala High Cour (H.C.) - A single Bench of the H.C. dismissed B.S.N.L.'s Plea and directed it to approach the Kerala state consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (C.D.R.C.) Failing to be 'educated' by this rebuff, the B.S.N.L. appealed before a Division Bench of the Kerala H.C. The latter referred the appeal to a full Bench. The Bench dismissed the petitions on 14-02-2003. B.S.N.L.then moved the Hon. Supreme Court (S.C.) and challenged the judgement of the Kerala H.C. The S.C. Bench. comprising of Hon. justice Markandey Katju and Hon. Justice A. K. Ganguly allowed the appeal. They observed that there is a remedy prescribed US 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act. of 1885 for resolution of all disputes regarding Telecommunication, through arbitration.
Since the Telegraph Act is a special law, its provisions would prevail over a general law likeConsumer Protection Act (C.P.A.) - "It is setteled law that general law must yield to special Law. The remedy under the C.P.A. is barred by implication" they held. This, in effect, will take away the jurisdication of the consumer Fora to entertain disputes relating to telecom services. With due respect to the judges, one cannothelp observing that the judgement shows lack of application of judicial mind. In the first place, thereis no reference whatsoerer to the relevant From the Consumer Courts Consumer Protection Act is in need of Protection A more serious implication is that if the logic of the judgement is to be stretched further, all
services including professional services for which special legislation is available, eg Airlines,Railways, Insurance,Banking, medicine, Law etc.will be out of the
jurisdiction of the C.P.A.This will defeat the whole purpose of creating a special
legislation for a single window system for speedy,simple and inexpensive redressal of consumer grievances.provisions/clauses of the C.P.A. whose jurisdiction it has set to define. The definition of service states "service of any description which is made availableto potential (users and includes, but not limited to,the provision of )facilities in connection with banking...., but does not include the rendering of any service free of change or under a contract of personal service. Telephone service does notqualify for either of the exceptions to the definition of a service. No where is it indicated that services which are ruled by a special legislation will be exempted from C.P.A.On the other hand, clause 3 of C.P.A. clearly states that "the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." This should clear any doubts about the applicabitily of C.P.A. in case of services for which special legislation is in force.Surprisingly, the judgement completely ignores and infact,
contradicts two earlier judgements of the Hon. S.C. viz. i) Fair Air Engineers VS. N. K. Modi and ii) Secretary,Thirumrugan Co.op. Agriculchral Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha. In both of these judgements, the Hon. S.C. has held that above mentioned sec.3 of the C.P.A. imparts jurisdiction to the consumer Fora even in those cases where special Acts are in force. To quote from the judgements. "The Act (C.P.A.) intends to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action. ......... The Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of comsumer
disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinery court system... The Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a Liberal construction." On the other hand, the Hon. judges have relied on an earlier Judgement of the S.C. Viz Chairman, Thiruvallurar Transport Corp. VS. Consumer Protection Council, which is far from relevant in the instant case. The judgement is not only controversial and illconceived but its implications are disastrous . The
immediate effect of the order will be that all complaints regarding telephone services pending before the Consumer Fora throughout the country will be dismissed. The complainants will have to file them afresh before the arbitrators appointed by the Govt. Telephone service providers on their part will not only keep compliance of the orders of the fora on hold, but also apply for a review of the cases already disposed off by the Fora.A more serious implication is that if the logic of the judgement is to be stretched further, all services including professional services for which special legislation is available, eg Airlines, Railways, Insurance, Banking, medicine, Law etc. will be out of the jurisdiction of the C.P.A. This will
defeat the whole purpose of creating a special legislation for a single window system for speedy,simple and inexpensive redressal of consumer grievances. This reminds me of the early 1990 s when various professional bodies and service providers tried their best to be exempted from the C.P.A. However, thanks to the efforts of the consumer organigations and judicious interpretation of the Act by the National commission and the Hon.supreme court. The jurisdiction of the C.P.A. has not only remained in tact but has actually expanded. Since the instant judgement may start a regressive trend by making inroads in the jurisdiction of the Comsumer Fora, consumer organisations in the country must take up this issue and make an unequivocal demand for a review of the judgement. M.G.P. also plans to approach the
Central Govt. (Dept.of Consumer Affairs and Dept.of Law and Judiciary) to take a lead in the matter of review of the judgement.
- Lalita Kulkarni
Ex-member Mumbai District Forum
Monday, November 2, 2009
Anonymous
03 November 2009 at 09:42
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your reply.We submitted the citation given by Mr Manohar and our lawyer also argued on the same.But the judge was not convinced and said that as per the latest SC judgment no lower court has the right to waive of statuatory period.However the judge( in My case)reserved the judgment next week.
I do not understand the SC judgement.When we have mutually agreed to terminate our marriage and the court not waiving of statuatory period,both the parties have to undergo a lot of mental presuure inspite of them not able to reconciliiate and they cannot decide on their future life also.
My point is can't anyone challenge the judgement??
Also i want to know if statautory period is granted do i have to pay maintanence to my wife???
Anonymous
03 November 2009 at 09:31
In DVC case what procedure is to be followed in the court. Civil or Criminal?
Is there a possiblility to pray for amendment of complaint for inclusion of any oversighted omission when criminal procedure is to be followed?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Property located in village of Tamilnadu has Will
My Father in-law has property is in Tamil Nadu at interior village and died on the year 2000 after made all settlement thro' registered Will in which he has authorize to enjoy the all properties to his three sons leaving 2 daughters mentioning in Will that he had settled his 2 daughters by the way of cash and jewels during their marriages held all before the year 1989( i.e. year HSA amendment 1989 in Tmail nadu). So father in -law has indicated in his Will that no property was assigned for his daughters. The year of Will register is 1990 before which all sisters were got married. These property is in a Tamil Nadu. Regarding this property, my Father-in-law has acquired in his hand from his father by way of registered Will after dividing the 50% of his property( schedule B property) to my father -in-law and another 50%(schedule A property) to elder brother of my father -in-law and both families are not a joint family and resources were not put in common hatchpot. Please clarify whether daughter become co-parcener for these property or not as the act came into effect in Tamil nadu only on 1989 and 2004 in whole country. As per 1989 act in TN, married daughters are not coparceners . As per act 2005, all partitions and testamentary dispositions occured before 2004 are all valid. Also these two amendement act are only applicable two joint family. In this scenario, please my wife ( daughter) can claim the property right or not.
Now all property were in the name of her two brother only.
please confirm with applicable law