sandip
17 February 2011 at 15:11
ON january 1, 2005 one ramesh while he was travelling from bangalore to pune by chennamma express was detained at belgaum railway station by the railway police and a suitcase containing a sum of rs. 5,00,000/- was seized from him on the suspicion case under section 411 ipc read with sections 41 and 102 of the cr.p.c was registered against him.
Mean while intimation about the seizure of money was sent to the incomce tax authorities at belgaum on 2nd january 2005. On 4th january 2005, the income tax inspector belgaum sent an information to the commissioner, income tax department, belgaum about the fact of possession of aforesaid amount by ramesh and also that he did not have any papers and document regarding the ownership and possession of the amount. the commissioner issued a warrant of authorization under section 132a of the income tax act, 1961 on the basis of which the income tax officer sent a letter of requisition to the station officer incharge, railway police belgaum requiring the station house officer to hand over the seized sum of money to him(incom tax officer) who had been aouthrized by warrant of authorization to receive it.
mean while the railway police after completing the investigation submitted the final report on 15th january, 2005 wherein it was stated that the money found in the possession of ramesh did not represent stolen property or property acquired from any offence.
Ramesh moved an application before the railway magistrate, belgaum praying that the money which had been recovered from his possession, be returned to him as it was not required for the purpose of any enquiry or trial. he further relied upon the fact that the railway police had given a final report in his favour.
In these facts and circumstances, argue on the application filed by shri ramesh on behalf of the applicatn as well as on behafl of the income tax department.
sir i need issues, facts arguement of both side with a format of moot memorial.
P V SASEENDRAN
17 February 2011 at 13:37
I am a resident of a Housing complex consisting of 10 blocks of building with 960 residential flats. Builder had been handing over possession of the flat to the respective buyers on completion of each block but strictly after collecting the following payments :
i) Full consideration money, including for garage, if allotted;
ii) Deposit against Generator
iii) Payment towards Fire Fighting system
iv) Payment against Transformer installed by the electricity provider – CESC Ltd.;
v) Club Membership fee
vi) Fee for formation of Company to take care of maintenance
vii) Cost of share of the Company being formed for maintenance.
viii) Legal charges in favour of the advocate appointed by the builder
Builder has just completed the 10th (last) block and handing over of possession is going on. However, other amenities viz., Garden, Swimming pool, Temple, jogging track, etc. are yet to be completed, although the first flat was handed over about 3 years back.
Although the company was formed to take care of the maintenance and they are collecting monthly maintenance charge from each flat owner, it is under the control of the builder only. In spite of the residents’ joint requests, the builder is not willing to even show the accounts of the company. A huge amount, on account of Deposits and monthly maintenance, is collected by the company and, in the records; the owners of the company are the flat owners only.
The service provided by the service provider appointed by the maintenance company is also not satisfactory and they do not generally take suggestions from flat owners as they are paid by the maintenance company which is controlled by the builder.
The service provider also does not allow permission to flat owners’ car to be parked in the premises unless he has not purchased the garage from the builder. In this connection, I would like to know whether it is right on their part in view of the recent Hon’ble SC’s ruling upholding the order of Hon’ble Mumbai HC that builder cannot sell garage/parking space separately and the flat owner is the rightful owner of these common space.
Under these circumstances, kindly advise if the flat owners are at liberty to form a fresh cooperative and register itself under Housing Cooperative Act, and pressurize the builder to give the accounts, as at the moment the residents do not have a common forum to fight for their right.
Thanks and regards,
P V Saseendran
Anonymous
17 February 2011 at 13:23
Pl. advice how I can find Property Card No. of Andheri-E property on the net. I am told that collector's office has provided details on the net. Regards.
Anonymous
17 February 2011 at 13:07
Sir,
I was working in the govt. autonomous body and in the year 2002 the high powered committee of the autonomous body in its meeting where the then Minister of the Ministry under which autonomous body was regulated, former president of india, former m.p. and renowned scholars being members were present and took a unanimous decision "it was decided that the persons who were appointed in the project since 10-20 years may face problem to get regular job outside and it is decided that their cases may be considered for regularisation without affecting the seniority of the regular staff of the institution. This decision came into black and white and circulated through minutes and Member Secretary also forwarded these minutes to the concerned officers for 'necessary action'. But this decision was not implemented and no order was issued except releasing of these minutes.
Sir,
My querry is whether - (i) we the former project employee raise our voice to regularise our services keeping in view the above decision of regularisation which was taken by majority by the high dignitories of our country. (ii) In Uma Devi Judgement it is clearly stated that if decision of regularisation has already taken by the State then the Uma Devi Judgment can not be implemented on the same cases. Sir, can we expect that the decision which was taken in the minutes of the meeting by using words 'may be considered for regularisation' can be considered as decision of regularisation.
GV Shukla
17 February 2011 at 12:48
I want to buy a builder floor in Gurgaon (less than 180 sq. yard) which cannot be registered as per current Haryana govt. laws. The seller is not related to me. The alternate way to purchase is through GPA, however, the sub-registrar of Gurgaon is only registering GPAs between blood relations.
If I get the GPA registered somewhere else in Haryana, will it be valid? Is GPA along with a will signed by the seller a valid legal transfer of property? Please help.
Anonymous
17 February 2011 at 10:43
Please suggest me that whether the Supreme court Judgement dated 09.02.2011 in the case of Mamta Vs. State of Orissa reg. 'If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board, that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 (equality clause) of the Constitution' is applicable by perusing my following questions -
(1) Is this Judgement applicable retrospectively to the cases where a competitive exam of shorthand and typing held with the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange or this judgement will be applicable for prospective/future cases only.
(2) I was appointed as stenographer grade 'd' initially in a project by competing 12 candidates sponsored by employment exchange and this test was taken by Director (Education) M/o of HRD. Later on after winding up of the project I was transferred to the one of the regular division of the same ministry. I was getting all regular employees benefits like CPF, Part Final withdrawl with gratuity rules of the institution, LTC (since inception) implementation of 5th and 6th pay commission report and arrears to this effect were also paid to me.
(4) In my initial appointment letter's Terms and Conditions it is clearly shown that 'he will not leave this organisation without the proper approval of this organisation', 'he will will be on the pay scale and will be paid salary at par with the other employees of the main regular organisation, police verification, medical from govt. hospital done;
(3) Am I not qualified stenographer after clearing the competitive exam which was given alongwith the candidates of Employment Exchange ?
(4) I was shown in writing that I was working in the main organisation(regular) against vacant post
Please advise me at the earliest please.
sunil nautiyal
16 February 2011 at 22:03
The Society CGHS constructed 264 flats for its members along with 118 covered car parking spaces (CCPS) in Stilt Area. The members were allotted CCPS through lucky draw on license basis on 24-02-1991. However, by the lapse of time some of the members sold the flats alongwith garages and some of the members sold the flats and garages separately. Knowing this some members who were kept in waiting list of car garages appealed before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The appeal was allowed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal vide order dated 08-06-2007 with the direction to the society to take legal action against the original allottees of the parking space on attorney or sale basis and recover the parking space from them and to allot them to the waiting list members on the First Come First Serve Basis. The Society challenged the order and the High Court of Delhi set aside the order passed by Delhi Cooperative Tribunal making the Rule absolute directing that in case of sale of flats, rights in the car parking can also be transferred but the same cannot be transferred to an outsider who is not an owner of the flat. At para 20 of the judgment learned counsel for the contesting respondents sought to contend that there were some transfers made not to the same person who purchased the flat but to another flat owner in the society. Such a course of action could have been doubtful but in view of the resolution passed on 30-09-07 to treat the CCPS on ownership basis with heritable and transferable rights at par with the flats, no grievance even in that behalf can be made. Thus aggrieved my right since seller of my flat sold CCPS on 2002 and I bought the flat in the year 2005 through agreement to sell. My argument is that CCPS is part of stilt area and part of common area and can not be sold separately as held by Apex Court in civil appeal 2544/2010. Now wait listed members filed a SLP in the Supreme Court of India. I was never a party in lower courts, but can I file an impleadment application with above mentioned SLP though relief sought is different?? If not, then what is the procedure of filing a SLP as I was not a party in any court??
Anonymous
16 February 2011 at 21:29
sir, can some one let me know if cases in andhra pradesh high court ( belonging to coastal region ) are moving or not ? or is this telengana issue hampering the cases and making them take more time ?
Anonymous
16 February 2011 at 10:16
AS OUR ORIGINAL & DUPLICATE C FORM HAS BEEN BURNED IN FIRE WE HAVE TAKEN ZEROX COPIES OF C FORM FROM OUR CUSTOMERS I LIKE TO KNOW IS THERE ANY CASE LAWS FOR ALLOWING COPY OF C FORM PLS. LET ME KNOW
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
lal dora and extended lal dora
pls tell me the lal dora land and extended lal dora land and mcd law in these land,and farmers right of making building in this land