Imtiyaz Hussain
21 July 2018 at 22:01
Dear Experts,
There is a case pending before the Hon'ble District court at New Delhi for 4 years and I am on behalf of respondent wife. The petition for declaration of dissolution of marriage under Muslim Law, 1939 has been filed by petitioner husband stating that he has given instant triple talaq in 2014. Now the judgement of Sharya Bano vs. UOI has came last year which held that the instant triple talaq is unconstitutional.
So, my question is can I file an application of dismissal/rejection of petition on the ground that such a petition is voidable on the ground that such practice is held illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of Articles 14 of Constitution?
Plz revert ASAP. Thanks
Imtiyaz Hussain
21 July 2018 at 21:38
Dear Experts,
There is a case pending before the Hon'ble District court at New Delhi for 4 years and I am on behalf of respondent wife. The petition for declaration of dissolution of marriage under Muslim Law, 1939 has been filed by petitioner husband stating that he has given instant triple talaq in 2014. Now the judgement of Sharya Bano vs. UOI has came last year which held that the instant triple talaq is unconstitutional.
So, my question is can I file an application of dismissal/rejection of petition on the ground that such a petition is voidable on the ground that such practice is held illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of Articles 14 of Constitution?
Plz revert ASAP.
Thanks
VIKAS WAGHMARE
21 July 2018 at 21:12
Hello,
A person representing an Organization appointed as a Priest, was terminated from the organization. But with his overpowering influence did not leave the Organization premises. Rather registered a Trust at the Charity Commissioners office as a separate indemnity using the address details and telephone bills without the permission of the parent organization, Hence, I was successful to raise an objection, his Trust under BPT 1950 was partially cancelled in the year 2009. Later on 29th Jan 2017, I being one of the Trustee sought the entry into the premises along with the Police Protection with propert resolution, Notices being served. The Encroach er, objected me, and filed Temporary Injunction and interim order under 41 E of MPT 1950 file different false facts in the affidavit and also N.C. at the local police chowky. I was also able to succeed in achieving the order in my favor finding the dismissal.
Should I file a complaint directly at JMFC u/s 340 of CRPC or 199/200 of IPC?
Please advise.
Thanks
rakesh mittal
21 July 2018 at 20:36
Sir I given amount Rs 32 lakh to my friend by cheque and made MOU at same time.he given cheque but cheque bouns due to insufficient funds.i sent advocates notice Now I want advice for best case .
Anonymous
21 July 2018 at 20:30
Sir
I given amount Rs 32 lakh to my friend by cheque and made MOU at same time.he given cheque but cheque bouns due to insufficient funds.i sent advocates notice
Now I want advice for best case .
raju
21 July 2018 at 19:44
I have filed complaint to police for sexually harassment, molestation and outrage modesty of woman against accused but even after one month police did not register FIR. Now the police telephonically called me after one month to come to police station and they shall visit the spot of incident where the accused resides within the complex. I requested the police to first lodge FIR take my statement but they refused. I fear threat to my life as the accused person is very influence and have strong links. My query is that why can't police first lodge the FIR take statement and investigate the matter.
vikas mantri
21 July 2018 at 19:04
मेरे दादा ने 10 बीघा जमीन 1963 में बेची , उसके बाद सेटेलमेंट 78-79 में उस व्यक्ति के नाम 16 बीघा जमीन दर्ज हो गयी । व एक अन्य को 40 बीघा बेची यही उसके नाम 34 बीघा दर्ज हो गयी । व राजस्व नक्से में भी इस गलत ढंग से नक्से बन गए और उसी हिसाब से 16 बीघा पर उस किसान ने कब्जा कर लिया । 1981 में मेरे दादा की डेथ हो गयी जिससे इस मामले की कोई जानकारी हमे नही थी ।
2016 में एक केस फाइल किया ओर 2017 में डिक्री आयी जिससे वापस वह किसान 16 बीघा से 10 बीघा का खातेदार रह गया व 34 बीघा से वापस 40 हो गयी और राजस्व नक्शे में दुरस्ती हो गयी , परंतु वह 16 बीघा में से 6 बीघा पर कब्जा देने से मना कर रहा है ।
यहां पर मेरे पास क्या रेमेडी है ? और यह 12 साल का लिमिटेशन कहाँ से अप्लाई होगा ?
(यह मामला मेरे संज्ञान में 2017 में डिक्री व निर्णय पड़ने पर आया ।)
rajesh patil
21 July 2018 at 17:52
Sir
i have purschasing the 1 acre land in the mangaon ,roha,MAHARASHTRA .
This land sell by EXPAT PROPERTIES,BANGLOR BASE COMPANY
WE HAVE PAID THE PAYMENT THRU INSTALMENT ,NOW THE TIME PEROID IS OVER ON DEC 2018
THE COMPANY ADVISE US THIS EMAIL : " Accordingly Expat as an organization has to comply by these rules "
CAN YOU ADVIS THE AGRICULTARAL LAND IS COMES UNDER MAHARERA / RERA ACT
PLEASE GUIDE ACCORDINGLY
JAIME
21 July 2018 at 17:49
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned
Judge framing additional issues, based on an application filed by the
petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out
that the learned Judge has erroneously considered that the petitioners
are claiming ownership in respect of the property bearing Survey
No.47/20, as well as Survey No. 47/20-A of Assonora Village. The
learned Counsel also points out that though the issue of cause of
action has been framed, nevertheless, there is no specific issue
framed as to whether respondents prove that the petitioners had
knowledge of the deed of partition.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and
with his assistance, I have gone through the impugned order, as well
as the application filed by the petitioners for framing additional
issues and the issues which were already framed by the learned
Judge.
4. With regard to the first contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, on perusal of issue No.2, as framed by
the learned Judge, the fact that the original property is surveyed
under No.47/20, which was thereafter surveyed under No.47/20-A is
taken care of. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners that a specific issue has to be
framed in connection with the property surveyed under No.47/20-A,
would not survive.
5. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, on perusal of the issues framed by the
learned Judge, I find that an issue of limitation has already been
framed. Consequently, the issue sought to be raised by the
petitioners would have to be established in the context of the findings
on such an issue.
6. In such circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdictional
error committed by the learned Judge which would call for
interference of this Court. The law provides that issues can be
framed and re-cast at any stage of the suit. As such, there is no
failure of justice to the petitioners in case this Court does not
interfere with the impugned order, at this stage.
7. Hence, the petition stands rejected.
The Plaintiffs filed Writ Petition against an impugned Order against the Trial Court for refusing to frame all issues, to frame proper issues and correct defective issues framed. The Petition was rejected by the High Court without properly examining the contents of the Writ Petition and by further stating that - The Law provides that Issues can be framed and recast at any stage of the suit and that the Court does not interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Does this mean that at the time of proving the issues framed by the court the Plaintiffs can raise objection against faulty issues and seek framing of all issues not framed? Or should the Plaintiffs move another application for framing of issues before the trial commences?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Lawyer who is well aware of sections 80p & 133(6) it act
We represent the co-operative movement in Kerala. Co-operative Societies is facing tough time from the year 2000 onwards due to notices issued by Income tax department under various Sections of Income Tax Act 1961. Conflicting decisions are being made by appellate authorities and even High Court only because the legal experts are not well aware of the factual situation. This has resulted in thousands of litigations causing waste of money, manpower, stationery and valuable time of Courts, ITAT, Income Tax Department and Co-operatives. For example, interpretation of Sections 80P, 56, 68 and 40 a(ia) being made by the Department, ITAT and of course the High Court is different from that of the well settled position of law in other States. There are situations that conflicting decisions are forthcoming from the same authority. As a result, the public exchequer has already lost thousands of Crores of Rupees in these litigations which could have been avoided if the concerned authorities had a clear perspective on the decisions of the Apex Court and various High courts in other States. We hope that CBDT will look into the matter urgently so as to take necessary action in order to prevent unnecessary disputes between Department and Co-operatives on settled position of law.
Now roving enquiries calling for voluminous information from co-operatives are being made by the Department u/s 133(6) for no particular reason taking advantage of the decision of the Apex court in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank vs. ITO, Kannur.
We would like to hear the opinion of our experts and request them to suggest a few names of lawyers who would be suitable to handle our cases in High Court and Supreme Court.