Rajat sahotra
25 March 2014 at 18:38
Seniors,
a contract labour union which is never been recognised or registered with the establishment but duly registered with labour office gave notice to hold Dharna and strike out side the establishment. Copy of the notice is also given to labour officer and the Deputy Commissioner.
The contract labour union is threatening and demanding to take back all the employees who were dismissed or terminated by Contractor working in the establishment.
All these employees were the employer of the Contractor and not the Establishment.
Establishment is a Co-operative Society duly registered with Sub registrar and in collaboration with state Govt Providing Ambulance and Hospital Research services to the Govt Hospitals in the State. Its a non profit organization and is funded by the Govt itself.
Kindly advise the remedies available?
Can the establishment fight in Civil Court for injunction against the Contract Labour Union?
What can be done in this situation?
Rajat sahotra
30 November 2013 at 21:10
The owner of vehicle lodged FIR qua theft of vehicle.
Thief caused accident with the stolen vehicle and killed someone.
In claim petition under MV Act thief was ex parte.
Insurance Co say that there was breach of policy as the thief was not having any valid DL as he has failed to come and produce any DL- Adverse inference to be drawn to this effect.
More so thief was not an agent of owner who is to be indemnified by insurance.
whether insurance is liable to indemnify for the accident caused by thief and pay compensation?
Rajat sahotra
30 November 2013 at 14:15
UNDER PFA Act distributer companies GENERAL MANAGER IS MADE ACCUSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHOPKEEPER UNDER 20-A OF PFA ACT.
The accused GM of the distributor Co.also made an application to implead manufacturer from whom he purchased the said material and that application is allowed and summoned were issued against Manufacturer whose service is still pending.
THE CHARGE IS FRAMED AGAINST accused GM of distributor company AND Thereafter he moved to HC for quashing of charge under 482 Crpc on the ground that he is not the person under sec-17 of the PFA Act who is directly responsible for conduct of the business(nether a director nor nominee)and is also not the declared nominee on behalf of distributor company.he is a employee working as GM and looking after finance work of the company?.
The Charge against the GM is quashed by the HC with further direction "that the Court
shall take into account the application filed by the present petitioner while passing an order, in accordance with law.
While doing so, provisions of Section 17 of the PFA Act shall be taken into account and parties are directed to appear before trial court." (Copy of order attached for your reference.)
Now the only application file by the accused distributor is of impleading manufacturer as accused which is already decided and manufacturer is summoned.
seniors if can advise whether accused against whom the charge framed needs to appear before the trial court if yes than whether he needs to file an application for his own deletion as accused based on the order passed by HC.?
or any other process to be followed by accused GM of distributor Co.
Rajat sahotra
29 October 2013 at 20:47
I observed that all lawyers have advised the STATUTORY period of intimating the drawer as 15 days. However, I understand that as per amendments passed in December 2002, the time to intimate the drawer about cheque bounce has been increased from 15 days to 30 days. Please advise what is correct situation.
Would a drawee be entitled remedy under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 if he/she intimates the drawer after 15 or 30 days as applicable?
Do these 15 or 30 days include state/national holidays or have to be working days only?
Rajat sahotra
06 October 2013 at 20:55
A case is pending before a lower trial court Under PFA ACT.
Now one of the accused moved to the high Court for Quashing of complaint against him.The quashing petition is admitted and the entire lower court file is summoned to the High court which is fixed for 18/10/13.
now on last date on 07/08/13 lower court magistrate issued Bailable Warrants against one of the accused and asked him to appear on 17/10/13 at lower trial court i.e. before him.sUMMON WERE DULY RECEIVED BY THAT ACCUSED.
now when entire file of the case is pending in the HIgh Court and lower trial do not have any records OF THE CASE than the accused against whom BW are issued should appear before the trial court or should wait till the file returns from High COURT TO THE LOWER TRIAL COURT?
Rajat sahotra
06 June 2013 at 09:41
Dear Experts please
Is it compulsory for the civil judge to issue notice to the already ex-parte defendant on a application moved by the plaintiff for correction & amendment of the ex-parte decree passed in favour of the plaintiff?
whether an EX-parte decree can be corrected or amended without giving notice to the respondent /defendant in a application under sec 151 and 152 for correction and amendment of ex-parte decree?
Rajat sahotra
28 April 2013 at 11:58
A sample of iodized salt was taken by Food Inspector which was found Adulterated. The purchaser impleaded the Distributor as accused under sec 20A of PFA Act.
The GM Finance & Account was named as accused in the application and arrayed as accused by name with company.
Now GM finance & Accounts is not directly responsible for conduct and management of the business of the Distributor Co.
Company has not named any Nominee for this purpose and the company is just a distributor not manufacturer.
Can the complaint be quashed under sec 482 of Cr.pc against the Accused GM Finance & accounts as he he is not the right person to be arrayed as accused for Co. because he is not directly responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and is looking after onlt Accounts and finance?.
Please give citations?
Rajat sahotra
28 April 2013 at 11:43
A supplied material to B on cash credit basis. After a period of time B stopped purchasing material and the payments become due towards B.
A wrote emails sending account statement to B for payment and charged interest per annum on long due payments.
A cheque issued as security by B was filled by A and presented for encashment which bounced saying "PAYMENT STOPPED'.
Notice of Demand issued but it was not mentioned that the cheque amount is along with interest amount.
Now complaint is to be filed.
Whether in complaint it has to be explained that the cheque amount is along with the interest amount?
Whether interest amount is recoverable by A from B?
Rajat sahotra
14 September 2012 at 17:53
Suit for Mandatory permanent prohibitory injunction filed along with O 39 R 1& 2 CPC asking defendant to stop his factories construction and seeking direction to defendant to first complete the retaining wall of the plaintiff as per their written registered agreement. The retaiing wall of the plaintiff has fallen due to illegal excavation done by defendant on adjoining plaintiff's land. Civil Judge Jr Div.order status qou in CMA O 39 R 1 & 2 but does not mention the suit property or the Khasara no of the plaintiff as well as of Defendant in status quo orders.
The order only say in one line"STATUS QUO QUA THE CONSTRUCTION AND NATURE OF THE SUIT"
and the next date of reply/ws of defendant is fixed .
In between as per the first status quo orders where no khasara no was mentioned by the judge in his orders defendant continued his work and filed and contempt of that order before the early hearings application of the defendant,
After that defendant moves an early hearing application for filing the WS/reply. On that the counsel of the plaintiff could not appear due to some mishappening in family. The client/plaintiff appeared himself and prayed for some tile for consideration as advocate could not appear and state dthe reason mentioned above to the Judge. but the judge changes his status qou orders and specifies the khasara number of the plaintiff land on which the defendant as per an agreement was to put the retaining wall before completing his own construction.
Now by this specifying the plaintiff 's land khasar no the defendant now started hi s construction and not of retaining wall of plaintiff.
Now what will be the fate or status of that contempt filed by plaintiff against defendant of the first status quo orders where no khasar no was specified by the judge?
What other remedy is left to stop the work of the defendant to the plaintiff?
Whether judge can change status quo orders in absence of the counsel of plaintiff?
Member Strength 9,47,498 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Whether complaint of 138 stands dismissed on payment of cheque amounts on first hearing by accused?
respected experts
The accused has made the payment of cheque amounts by demand drafts of 2 complaints on first hearing of the case to the counsel of the complainant. The DDs were accepted by the counsel and the party and the counsel of the complainant gives statement in written to the court that the complaints shall be withdrawn in LOK ADALAT on Next hearing.
On the next hearing at LOk adalat they refused to withdraw the complainants and ask for interest amount on the cheque amounts for the delay payments and litigation charges. DDs in complainants possession and encashed.
The magistrate is also adamant and says the offence under sec 138 of NI Act does not end even if the payment is made and ask the accused for settlement of accounts and again fix the cases in lok adalat for withdrawal of complaints. Magistrate did not pressed the complainant to withdraw the complaints when payment has already been received.
Now whether on payment of cheque amount on first hearing ends the case of the complainant?
whether interest on cheque amounts can be recovered through 138 complaints?
whether magistrate has power to dismiss the complaints when the payment of cheque amounts has already been made by accused through DDs. on first hearing? if possible site some law.