d
09 February 2009 at 21:27
can i challenge the constitutional validity of the dowry prohibition act on the basis of art 21 since it is curtailing my fundamental right of personal liberty
Anonymous
09 February 2009 at 20:01
Yahoo!My Yahoo!MailMore Yahoo! ServicesMake Y! My HomepageGet Yahoo! ToolbarAccount OptionsHi, sanjaySign OutAll-New MailHelpYahoo! Searchweb searchMail Contacts Calendar Notepad What's New? Mobile Mail Mail Options Mail Plus Options
Search Mail
Find Anyone's
Email Address
Folders[Add a new folder - Edit folders]
Inbox (6) Drafts (8) Sent Spam [Empty all the messages from the Spam folder] Trash [Empty all the messages from the Trash folder]
Search Shortcuts
My Photos My Attachments
ADVERTISEMENT
SIR,
PLEASE SUGEST ME ON THE MATTER MENTIONED BELOW.
DETAILS YEAR WISE HAPPENINGS-
>.
YR. 1966,our seller who sold the property to us ,purchased the property.
>Yr 1978,seller took I.T permission and Ceiling Permission from
Land Revenue Dept from I.T dept of Jodhpur and Raipur,where
both joint owners very staying at time of Registry,for
selling the property to us.
> YR.1979 seller sold the property in 2 parts through POA and
given us their possession and their original documents.
> Yr.1979, we received notices from I.T dept for undervaluing
the property in Registry.
> Yr.1980 we transferred both property in Muncipal Dept,
Electricity Dept and got Industrial License for Saw Mill in
a Plot.
> Yr.1985 we got muted one property in our name in land revenue
records.
> Yr. 1991 S.B.I made party in a case for keeping our property
mortgaged and taking personal guarantee against loan.(for
property muted in our name in yr 1985)
> Yr.2003 we submitted our both registries in a civil case
against the present POA of seller.
>Yr. 2005 we lost a registry with original and only copy of
Seller POA copy received by us at time of Registry.we filed
complaint in local police station and given advertisement in
Newspapers for lost.
> In march 2005 we muted second property in our name ,in which
we are staying from the time of registry .
>IN nov. 2005 seller got our mutation cancel order but they got
order in name of only 5 joint owners,whereas we got muted in
6 joint owners.They got cancellation order without making us
party in really.
we challenged the above order immediate in dec.
>IN 2005,stating that they never served us any notices and not
got order against all the names in whose name mutation was
there.
> Yr 2006 we won the case against S.B.I, in DRT,JABALPUR .
> YR 2006 we filed case civil suit for title deed ,and for
status quo as we got threat from mafias for leaving the
property.
> seller,became EX-party as they not responded to all the
Registerd notices and paper advertisement published at their
place of stay,given by the court.
> YR 2007,seller appeared in the case and given power of just
1/4 area to their Relative who stay very near to us,in our
city,and became party in the case.
> Yr 2008 POA holder refused the Registry of 1979 and stated
that they never gave POA to anybody for Executing Registry.
Here he is telling,Pleading about whole property whereas he was
given power of approx 1/4 of the property which we are
claiming.
Yr 2009 case is still going on in Land Revenue Court and Civil Court,where we filed the case against them.
DETAIL HAPPENING AND REQUEST.
> Respected Sir/Madam,
>
> > we purchased 2 properties in 1979 . In registration of
documents ,attached documents were
,<1>permission for
sale of properties from land ceiling dept,<2>
incometax dept. permission for sale of
properties,,<3>map of property.The registration
was
done by the power of attorney holder,whose power of
attorney copy was not required to be attached in
Registry,
that time.It was Registrar who use to confirm the
authority,
of P.A holder .Out of two properties one was of small
factory shed with open plot,for it- we got our name
transferred in Land Revenue Records in 1985,but other
property was a Residental building,in which we are
stay
Rajaram C Iyer
09 February 2009 at 19:44
Dear Ld Friends of TN,
May I have the detials of Civil and Criminal Courts in Chennai. In Delhi we have the Court Handbook which gives a brief discription about the number of courts, jurisdiction pecuniary as well, fees for Injunction,HMA cases etc. This is available in the court web site.
If anybody can provide me a soft copy, I would be highly grateful.Also let me know whether any book is available, if so, where?
Thanks and regards
C. Rajaram
kanwar Lal
09 February 2009 at 19:01
a person is in govt service now he want to change his name. his name in official record is ravi kumar now he want to attache his sir name sharma. is it possible if yes what's the procedure?. if there is any legal provison plz explain.
kanwar Lal
09 February 2009 at 18:53
Complaint u/s 138 is pending against the accused.court declared po to the accused. now can complainant go for attachement of movable property of the accused? if yes under which provision.can we attache movable property or not.
d
09 February 2009 at 18:12
i have a moot prob regarding dowry act in which 5 lakhs was paid to the husband before marriage even when he had not demanded it. after 4 months of marriage when he wanted a divorce the wife filed a false dowry f.i.r that the husband and his family are demanding and pressurizing her for dowry.
he formed a SAVE INDIAN FAMILIES ASSOCIATION (SIFA) And filed a writ petition on its behalf challenging the constitutional validity of the dowry prohibition act.
can he do so and from where do i find the locus standi of the association
Guest
09 February 2009 at 18:07
1) One of my client company- sahres transferred from res to NRI through transfer deeds dated 3-3-8. Still FC TRS not filed at RBI...can it b filed now? Penalty etc? plz. Tq.
2) The Board of Dir wants to register the transfer in the registers before 31st march 2008 though fc-trs was not filed for this. Possible? Plz. Tq.
rooman
09 February 2009 at 17:04
hi,iam going to start a small company that is online pc repair only in karnataka, i will accept credits through credit card online
please tell me A to Z rules & regulations......
vinod satpute
09 February 2009 at 16:12
Human Rights International v. Union of India
The erstwhile territory of ’British India’ was divided, and under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, passed by the British Parliament, India and Pakistan were established. The said Act, under Section 7 (1) (b), also terminated the treaties or agreements ending British Paramountcy over the Native Indian States namely Kashmir, Mysore, Hyderabad, etc.
In pursuance of the end of British Paramountcy, the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to India; Pakistan, however, contested the accession. The resulting hostility between the two nations led predictably to the wars of 1948, 1965, and 1971. In a bid to resolve issues peacefully, the Shimla Accord of 1972 was signed.
Subsequently, terrorists started attacking India and during the last two decades, about 20,000 people were killed and large numbers were injured. The arrest of a number of these terrorists and other information collected by the intelligence agencies indicated that these terrorists were trained in Pakistan. India protested against such trainings and requested Pakistan, through diplomatic channels, to deal with the perpetrators of the crime. However, terrorist activities remained unabated. The most dastardly was the terrorist strike on November X, 2008 in Mumbai which killed more than 200 people and maimed and injured several others.
Responding to the huge public out cry and detailed coverage in the media, the Indian Parliament debated the matter extensively. The US response to 9/11 incident was considered. It was finally decided to pass the Trial of Cross-Border Terrorists Act, 2008 [Act no X of 2008].
Section 2 declared ‘cross-border terrorist acts’ as ‘acts of war’ and such a terrorist, as an ‘enemy alien’. Section 3 defined a ‘cross-border terrorist’ as a person coming from Pakistan who commits an act of terrorism killing or injuring persons intentionally. Section 4 provided for the appointment of an ‘Investigating Officer’. Section 5 enumerated the powers of the investigating officer, which, inter alia included detention of suspected cross-border terrorists in their custody or camp till the end of their trial. Section 6 made confessions as admissible evidence. Section 7 placed the onus of proving his innocence on the accused cross-border terrorist. Section 8 provided for the establishment of a Special Security Tribunal headed by the Judge Advocate General to try the accused cross-border terrorist. Section 9 permitted legal representation for the accused cross border terrorist. Section 10 mandated full opportunity to the accused cross border terrorist to defend his innocence. Section 11 mandated the holding of proceedings in camera and completion of the trial within 3 months from the date of framing of charges or transfer. Section 12 prescribed minimum punishments which included life sentence. Section 13 barred the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other Court against the conviction or sentence passed by the Special Security Tribunal. Section 12 mandated that the orders of the Tribunal be made public. Section 14 required transfer of all pending cases relating to the cross-border terrorists to the Special Security Tribunal. Sec.15 empowered the Central Government to make rules regulating the procedure of trial and incidental matters.
The Human Rights International headed by an Indian challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 2008 under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The division bench of the Court issued notice and referred the matter to the Constitution Bench to decide the question as to whether the Trial of the Cross Border Terrorists Act, 2008 is constitutionally valid.
WHAT ARE THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AND HOW SHOULD I START WORKING FOR THIS CASE.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Arrest and Surrender
A person was wanted in a criminal case.He surrendered before the magistrate.The magistrate granted him bail.But in order sheet he did not write that he was first taken into custody by him on his surrender and then granted bail.Subsequently he was acquitted from the case. The said person applied for a governmentjob and in his verification form in answer to a question "whether arrested?" he wrote "No". He was denied the job for making a false declaration.His advocate says that since the magistrate while enlarging him on bail did not write in the order sheet that he was taken into custody on his surrender so it can be safely presumed that he was not arrested and that the surrender did not meant arrest.The law officer of government opined that the surrender before the magistrate and subsequent enlargement on bail will be deemed to be arrest by the the magistrate and then enlargement on bail. What is the position of law? Can a magistrate Grant Bail to an accused person on surrender before his court without taking him in the custody? Since the magistrate has not written in the order sheet that the accused was taken into custody and then granted bail then will it be considered an implied custody? kindly answer with the reference of the law or rulings whether the law is in favour of the candidate or not?