22 July, 2014

BCI has decided to pay Rs. 5000/- Stipend to New Advocates



Yes, BCI has decided to pay Rs. 5000/- Stipend to New Advocates.

In order to provide relief to the new advocates who struggle at their initial stage, the Bar Council of India decided to pay Rs. 5000/.- stipend per month for a period of 5 years.

The resolution was passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) at a joint meeting with the representatives of the State Bar Councils and State Bar Associations at Delhi.




The meeting was held to discuss and formulate schemes and proposals for lawyers.

Read more »

22 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

16 July, 2014

ISAL Inter States Association of Lawyers Meetup on July 20th, 2014 at Ludhiana


After a successful meetup at Ambala, Inter States Association of Lawyers next meeting is to be held at 2:00PM on July 20th, 2014 at Circuit House, Ludhiana, Punjab.

All the practicing and non practicing Advocates from North Zone of India are invited to join and express their valuable views in this meeting. You can share your problems that you are facing at your local bar associations in this meeting, as the prime motive  of this association is to tackle the problems of lawyers.

In case you have any query regarding this meeting, you can leave a message below by entering your Email ID in the comment box, and your query will be answered by earliest possible.

Read more »

16 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

Inter States Association of Lawyers to be formed soon

Ambala : A meeting was organised by Sh. Lekhraj Sharma, Member of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and AAG, Punjab in Ambala City, Haryana for the formation of Inter States Association of Lawyers. Advocates from all over the North India were present in this meeting. All the members of meeting collectively decided that an Inter State Association should be formed that can understand and tackle the problems faced by Lawyers throughout the country.

Read more »

by Puneet Batish · 0

15 July, 2014

Agreement for entering into partnership business - Document remaining unregistered - Partnership coming to an end - One party giving up its share favouring the other thereof adjustment - subsequent suit for its dissolution - Held, document not compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1)(c) of Registration Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ. 
Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1961. D/d. 21.1.1966.

Addanki Narayanappa and another - Appellant
Versus
Bhaskara Krishnappa, (dead) and thereafter his heirs and others - Respondent

For the Appellant :- M/s. Alladi Kuppuswami and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents Nos 4, 7 and 8 :- M/s. N. C. Chatterjee and S. G. Patwardhan, Senior Advocates, (Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate and Mr. Thiagarajan, Advocate, for Mr. N. S. Mani, Advocate

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Mudholkar, J. - In this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the question which arises for consideration is whether the interest of a partner in partnership assets comprising of movable as well as immovable property should be treated as movable or immovable property for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The question arises in this way. Members of two joint Hindu families, to whom we would refer for convenience as the Addanki family and the Bhaskara family, entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on business of hulling rice, decorticating

Read more »

15 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

13 July, 2014

Smt. Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another - D/d. 25.1.1978

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- M.H. Beg, C.J.I., Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazl Ali and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.
Writ Petn. No. 231 of 1977. D/d. 25.1.1978.

Smt. Maneka Gandhi - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- M/s. Madan Bhatia and Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Sachthey and K.N. Bhatt, Advocates.
For the Intervener :- Mr. Ram Panjwani, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Vijay Panjwani and Raj Panjwani, Mr. S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


M.H. Beg, C.J. - The case before us involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such questions I believe that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of this Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies our not infrequently differing approaches. It should enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.

Read more »

13 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

10 July, 2014

Petitioner lodged FIR - Police submitting challan - Accused acquitted after full fledged trial - Police cannot proceed against petitioner under Section 182 IPC on the ground that he gave false information to Police

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Virender Singh, J.
C.R.M. No. 2402-M of 2005. D/d. 18.7.2006

Balraj Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Ms. Satpreet Grewal, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, D.A.G., Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Virender Singh, J. - Petitioner is seeking quashing of Criminal challan No. 38/1/02 registered under Section 182 IPC, Annexure P-4 and the order dated 16.7.2002 Annexure P-6 vide which the cognizance of the same has been taken by the concerned Court and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Read more »

10 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

09 July, 2014

Inter-caste and Inter-religious marriage against the wishes of parents - Threats and harassment to couples - Police to institute criminal proceedings against anyone who gives such threats

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 602 Of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5005 of 2010) with Civil Appeal Nos. 2204-2209 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 29951-29956 of 2010) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 603-608 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Cri.) No. 7008-7013 of 2010). D/d. 1.3.2011.

Ashok Kumar Todi - Appellant
Versus
Kishwar Jahan and others - Respondents

For the Appearing parties :- Gopal Subramanium, SG, H.P. Raval, ASG, U.U. Lalit, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, P.P. Rao, D. Roy Choudhary, V.A. Mohta, Sudhir Nandrajaog, Senior Advocates, P.K. Dey, Rajeev Nanda, Ms. Shweta Verma, Harsh, A.K. Sharma, Amit Basu, Rana Mukherjee, D.N. Mitra, Ayen Chakraborty (for Ms. Victor Moses and Associates), Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. M. Indrani, B.P. Yadav, K. Datta, Atul Singh, Abhay Kumar, Kishore Dutta, Suchit Mohanty, Mangalijit Mukherjee, Anupam Lal Das, P. Roy Choudhary, Anjan Chakraborty, A. Chakraborty, Indranil Ghosh, Goodwill Indeevar, Deepak Bhatcharya, S.J. Amith, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ashok Kr. Mukherjee, Ms. Soumya Chakraborty, Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Dharam Raj Vohra, Atul, Abhay Kumar, Tenzing Tsering, Taran Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Manish Srivastava, Praveen Agarwal, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. - Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in M.A.T. Nos. 703, 895, 704, 713, 714 and 744 of 2008 whereby the CBI was directed to start investigation afresh in accordance with law treating the complaint dated 21.09.2007 filed by Rukbanur Rahman, brother of Rizwanur Rahman - the deceased, as F.I.R. and to register a case of murder.

Read more »

09 July, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

Caste system is a curse on the nation - Supreme Court directed that administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Ashok Bhan & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Writ Petition (Crl.) 208 of 2004. D/d. 7.7.2006.

Lata Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Another - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Sakesh Kumar, Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mrs. Reena Singh for Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocate.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. - This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus for quashing the Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001 under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 336 of 2000 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow.

Read more »

by Puneet Batish · 0

12 June, 2014

Petitioner in cultivating possession, the right of respondent to transfer his share through sale cannot be denied on the sole ground that he is not in possession

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

Before :- Shyama Mann, FC.
R.O.R. No. 277 of 1996-97. D/d. 19.3.1998.

Chattar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Singh - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. P.S. Gill, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

ORDER

Shyama Mann, FC. - This is a reference from the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 11.12.1996 recommending that the order passed by Assistant Collector Grade-I, Nabha on 21.3.1991 and the order passed by District Collector, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the petitioner be set aside.

Read more »

12 June, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

11 June, 2014

Adverse possession - Ownership of the petitioner on account of adverse possession rejected but other prayer regarding not maintainability allowed by the learned Trial Court - Appeal - Interim injunction declined

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Sat Pal, J.
CR No. 4810 of 1997. D/d. 23.3.1998.

Dalip Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Chhotta Singh - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

ORDER

Sat Pal, J. - In this case the petitioner-defendant had earlier filed a suit in the year 1990 claiming the relief for declaration that he was owner in possession and it was further prayed in that suit that the plaintiff be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner-defendant. That suit was partly dismissed and partly decreed. The prayer that the petitioner-defendant was owner in possession by way of adverse possession was rejected but the other prayer that the petitioner-defendant should not be dispossessed except by due process of law was allowed vide judgment dated 8.9.1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 8.9.1992 the petitioner- defendant filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court but the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.7.1995.

Read more »

11 June, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

25 May, 2014

Dishonour of cheque of Rs.1.50 lakhs - Complainant could not prove that he had this much money to advance - Accused acquitted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2006. D/d. 11.1.2008.

Krishna Janardhan Bhat - Appellant
Versus
Dattatraya G. Hegde - Respondent

For the Appellant :- S. Balakrishnan, Senior Advocate (AC) and Krishna Janardhan Bhat, In-person.
For the Respondent :- S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Pawar and D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


S.B. Sinha, J. - Appellant and one R.G. Bhat were jointly running a business in the name and style of Vinaya Enterprises at Hubli together. Appellant executed a Power of Attorney in his favour.
2. Allegedly, he had handed over four blank cheques to the said constituted attorney for meeting the expenses of the business. The counter foil of the cheque books was also allegedly filled in by Shri R.G. Bhat.
3-4. The cheque bearing No. 044483 was shown to have been a self drawn one for a sum of Rs. 1500/-.

Read more »

25 May, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

©2009-2011 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Download Print Friendly PDF FileFree Legal Advice on Phone