kavkaz
07 August 2014 at 10:29
Hi,
I had filed a case in Cooperative court for Reimbursement for expenses done by me to waterproofing the terrace due to leakage in my flat during rainy season. Our society had filed written statement reply for it.
Query: Can I answer to that reply by written statement or through oral arguments on hearing?
P K Sharma
07 August 2014 at 09:42
Kind attention is drawn to Rule 3.1 as shown hereunder of Office Memorandum No.22011/4 /91-Estt.(A) of 14th Sept., 1992 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training-
“3.1 If any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal prosecution against him, the findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him.”
I was awarded a penalty of Censure. However in compliance to Para 3.1 of above Office Memorandum the sealed cover was not opened despite the fact that there are so many instances where an employee having awarded penalty of Censure prior to DPC have been promoted.
The rule is not only discriminatory but also contradictory which can be proved by the following example.
Two employees who were under the zone of consideration for promotion on 01.01.14 were served with chargesheets on 20.12.13 to reply in defence within 15(Fifteen) days. One of the employee submitted his replies on 25.12.13 & the Disciplinary authority awarded him a penalty of Censure before 01.01.14. DPC considered him to be promoted to next higher grade since Censure does not have any currency period. The other employee submits his reply on 02.01.14 & was also censured by the Disciplinary authority. However his candidature which will be in sealed cover will not be acted upon. Will there will not be injustice in later case?
Will the former will enjoy Promotion benefit whereas the candidature of the later will continue to remain in sealed cover?
The example cited above clearly proves that the rule itself is discriminatory and violates article 20 of the constitution of India since a double penalty i.e. (i) Minor penalty of censure and (ii) withholding of promotion is imposed to one of the candidate and also violates article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India since quantum of punishment is different for same type of penalty.
May kindly apprise that I have to proceed court of law for justice.
Arvind
07 August 2014 at 09:11
Hi! Sir(s),
I was returning from Mumbai to Rajkot Jn, in my baggage there was 4 Beer Bottles, When I reached to Rajkot Stn.., Suddenly Railway Police asked me to Open your Luggage, I Open it there was available 4 Beer Bottles, then Police Man asked me for Bribe for 50,000/- to 60,000/- Otherwise they will FIR against me., I am Working Guy in Someone Co. in Good Post & Package.., then I negotiate with them in Rs.2000/- + they retained 4 Beer Bottles, then I managed to escape from Police Stn.. Let me know If I din't paid Bribe then What would be its legal Consequences???
Sri
07 August 2014 at 06:54
Hi experts,
I have a question regarding my grand mothers veelunama (Telugu) where she wrote that income on her assests can be enjoyed me ,but selling rights only to my son.
1) my wife have fertility issues since 5 yrs. How does law say if I don't get kids?
2) what if I give birth to a girl child only? Does girl child will have rights?
3) if we adopt a boy/girl will they get rights?
4) even though she wrote a veelunama giving selling rights to her grand grand son, as a grand son won't I have rights to sell land?
kavitha
07 August 2014 at 06:41
Who all need not file a vakalathnama? I understand that government advocates and senior counsels need not file a vakalathnama? is it correct.
Sri
07 August 2014 at 06:14
Hello all ,
My grand father bought few acres of land (andhra pradesh , prakasam dist) 40 yrs back from a person , who initially bought it from a freedom fighter.
There were few registrations that happened before we bought that land .
But recently 2 yrs back during YSR regime , government had stopped registrations in our area as they were collecting land for VANPIC project.
Though government did not occupy our land or nor given any notice to our lands, they have stopped registrations of sorrounding areas .
Wish to know
1) whether the lands that were assigned to Freedom Fighter are still considered ASSIGNED, even after multilple registrations and even after 40 yrs of tenure?
trilok manot
07 August 2014 at 00:00
Most Respectfully Sheweth :-
That the present complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and is aged about 38 years. The complainant is a businessman by profession and is his residing at 14, Bentinck Street, 5th Floor, Kolkata- 700001 under the jurisdiction of Hare Street Police Station.
The present accused is running a business under the name and style of “Salasar Tradeline Company” which is located at 89, N.S. Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001. The present accused is known to the complainant for a considerable period of time through a close friend namely, Trilok Kumar Manot and due to this the accused person shared a good relationship with the complainant for several years.
Owing to the fact that the accused was known to the complainant for several years and shared a good relationship with the complainant and taking advantage of the same, the accused approached the complainant/ petitioner for a loan of Rs 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs Only) in the month of April, 2014. The accused represented to the complainant/ petitioner that he was passing through a financial crunch and projected that he had an urgent requirement for a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs).
The accused person while asking for the loan amount represented and assured the complainant/ petitioner that he would require the loan for a short period of time and would repay the loan given by the complainant within 31.05.2014. He further assured that there would be no delay in making the repayment and was only taking the loan as his financial position had deteriorated.
Believing such representation made by the accused person to be genuine and sacrosanct one, the complainant decided to part with a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) by way of loan on the assurance that such sum would be paid back to the complainant within 31.05.2014.
Thereafter, in the month of April, 2014 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) to the accused person under the assurance that such sum would be repaid by 31.05.2014. At the time of giving such loan to the accused person, my friend Trilok Kumar Manot was also present. In his presence I paid the accused person a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) in cash to the accused person. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said Trilok Kumar Manot is the brother-in-law of the accused person.
At the time of parting with the loan amount of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) and in the presence of Trilok Kumar Manot, the accused person acknowledged receiving such sum in cash and provided a hand written receipt with his signature. The accused also promised that the sum would be paid within the designated time period and further assured that there would be no default in making the repayment of loan.
A photocopy of the hand written acknowledgment receipt is annexed hereto and marked as “P/1.”
That the complainant states that on or about in the middle of April, 2014, the accused person once again approached the complainant for a further loan of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- (Four Lakhs Only) as he was in some severe bottleneck situation. He further represented that he would pay back the total loan amount in the designated time period and it was agreed that the accused person would hand over a post dated account payee cheque amounting to Rs, 30, 00, 000/- (Thirty Lakhs Only) in favour of the complainant/ petitioner and the same which would be redeemable on or after 31.05.2014.
After making such further payment of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- (Four Lakhs Only), the accused person in lieu of his loan gave a cheque of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Thirty Lakhs Only) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sutapatty, Kolkata- 700007 being cheque no. 428266 dated 19.04.2014. It was also agreed between the parties that the said cheque would be encashed/ cleared on or after 31.05.2014.
After the expiry of the loan period, the complainant duly presented the cheque for encashment at Punjab National Bank, Sutapatty, Kolkata, within its validity period. Much to the complainant’s astonishment the cheque which was presented within its validity period returned dishonoured on 14.06.2014 with the remark “Account Closed.”
A photocopy of the Cheque Return Memo dated 14.06.2014 is annexed hereto and marked as “P/2.”
After the dishonour of the said cheque the complainant requested the accused person to keep his promise by paying the loaned amount of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). Thereafter, the complainant started pursuing the matter.
After speaking to the accused person the complainant was extremely surprised to learn that the accused person had no intention to pay back the loaned amount. When the complainant spoke to the accused person, he blatantly told the complainant that he would not pay back the loaned amount and had no intention to repay it in the near future. The accused person also threatened the complainant to not deposit the aforesaid cheque and told the complainant that he was free to take any action against him.
That the complainant states that it is crystal clear through the acts of the accused person that from the very inception the abovementioned accused person had the intention to cheat the complainant of the loan amount given and had no intent to pay back the loaned amount of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). Furthermore, the accused person had maliciously represented to the complainant that he was in a financial crunch in order to extract the sum of money from the complainant.
That the accused person for the aforesaid illegal acts has committed offences punishable under sections 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
That the incident was intimated to the Officer-In-Charge of Hare Street Police Station vide complaint letter dated 02/ 08/ 2014 and the same was received by them on 02/08/2014. However, the Officer-In-Charge had not taken any action over the aforesaid complaint and they have advised the complainant company to take recourse before your Honour’s Court.
Photocopy of such letter is annexed hereto and marked as annexure “P/3.”
That the incident was intimated to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Division vide complaint letter dated 04.08.2014 and the same was received by them on 04.08.2014. However, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Division had not taken any action over the aforesaid complaint and they have advised the complainant company to take recourse before your Honour’s Court.
Photocopy of such letter is annexed hereto and marked as annexure “P/4”.
That the offence committed by the accused persons is well within the jurisdiction of the Learned Court and as the Police Authorities did not start any case the complainant company has no other option than to seek recourse before the Learned Court for treating this instant petition under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and issuing process against the accused persons.
That the Learned Court has sufficient powers to allow this application under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the concerned Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to treat this instant petition of complaint as a First Information Report.
That this application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.
In the above stated facts and circumstances it is prayed before Your Honour to pass an order allowing the application under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the concerned Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to treat this instant petition of complaint as First Information Report and /or any other order/orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
And for this act of kindness your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
balwinder123
06 August 2014 at 23:50
In a recovery suit on the bases of pronote, if the plaintiff has not filed the succession certificate at the time of filing the suit and also not mentioned it in the list under order 7 rule 14,
Whether it can be admissible in evidence in further stage, filed without leave of court?
vijay waghmare
06 August 2014 at 22:59
Hi some days before my wife hospitalized for bed rest some how 6 days unfortunately treating doctor is of MS(AYURVEDA)for that reason insurance company has been rejected my claim. does one have any supported documents to approve my claim.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Termination of employee of icici bank
Termination of Assistant Manager Grade-I of ICICI bank can be challenged under ID Act or not, Kindly advice.