Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kunal Madan
27 followers
27 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
How to draft Watertight Contract on your own
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

How to ensure that the judge can't say no to your electronic evidence...
Here are some tips on how to make electronic evidence like recordings, emails and chats admissible in a court of law:
1. Preserve the original gadget: Keep the gadget with which you have procured the evidence in safe keeping. And produce it in court when the need arises. The possible gadgets are: For Pictures - the camera or the phone, for Audio recordings - the audio recorder, for chats - the phone or laptop.
2.Get the gadget tested: If the above evidence is disputed, you'll need to get the gadget tested through a certified forensic lab.
3.Various formats of evidence: Any electronic record which is printed on a paper or stored, recorded or copied in optical/magnetic media shall also be considered to be a document, if the conditions mentioned in section 65B are satisfied:
a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly.
b) During the said period, information contained in the electronic record was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course
c) Throughout the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then was not to such an extent as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents.
d) The information contained in the electronic record reproduces such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content

How to recover money from your client

1. TAKE QUICK ACTION: You should ideally take action the moment you see your client defaulting on your payment beyond a reasonable amount of time. Remember, the older the debt, the lesser the chances of recovery.

In case of cheque dishonor, you should issue the legal notice within 30 days and file a complaint within 45 days post that, for the best chance of recovery.

Please note, the courts do not entertain any debt recovery cases beyond 3 years.

2. CUT-OFF TIME: You should ideally send out the letters within the credit period and a notice immediately after the expiry of the same.

3. APPLY PRESSURE: You have the option to file both civil and criminal cases against your debtor. In case of habitual defaulters, only pressure works. And in case the defaulter is a company, you may file a winding up petition
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

How to recover money from your client

1. TAKE QUICK ACTION: You should ideally take action the moment you see your client defaulting on your payment beyond a reasonable amount of time. Remember, the older the debt, the lesser the chances of recovery.

In case of cheque dishonor, you should issue the legal notice within 30 days and file a complaint within 45 days post that, for the best chance of recovery.

Please note, the courts do not entertain any debt recovery cases beyond 3 years.

2. CUT-OFF TIME: You should ideally send out the letters within the credit period and a notice immediately after the expiry of the same.

3. APPLY PRESSURE: You have the option to file both civil and criminal cases against your debtor. In case of habitual defaulters, only pressure works. And in case the defaulter is a company, you may file a winding up petition
Photo
Add a comment...

Courts should be liberal in allowing third-party locus standi : Supreme Court


Amanullah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.



The Hon'ble Superme Court in aforesaid matter held that Court should be “liberal in allowing any third party” with a bona fide connection with the matter in interest of substantial justice’, However, such authority must be exercised by courtswith due care, it cautioned, to ensure that persons with personal grievances were not allowed to abuse the legal system, nor those who were unconnected with the matter. Rather than enumerate a list of persons who have locus standi, the court tendered that who all would have locus to maintain an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution would depend on the facts of each case.

The Court had heard the appeal against an order of the High Court quashing the cognisance order of the magistrate against a charge of murder. It concluded that the High Court’s decision was in error, on an appraisal of material placed before it. Witness testimony and evidence collected by the investigating officer was correctly considered by the CJM before taking cognisance.

Source : Manupatra
Add a comment...

Delhi Government order towards 75% quota-free school admissions stayed

2016-02-11 // 0 Comments //
Delhi Government order towards 75% quota-free school admissions stayed



High Court of Delhi



ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS V. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION





Education



Delhi High Court restored the management quota in private, unaided schools, after the same had been done away with pursuant to a government order. The Court observed the order to have been executed by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and noted that promoters of a school were entitled to full autonomy in the administration of the school, including the right to admit students. The Delhi Government had introduced the order in light of schools adopting discriminatory criteria for admission, such as status of child, non-smoker parent, vegetarianism and educational level of parents.
Add a comment...

High Court of Kerala

Mohammed Nissam A.A. v. The State of Kerala



Mazahar to not be treated as previous statement unless versions exist

Video recordings made by investigating officer during preparation of scene mahazar cannot be used as a previous statement under Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the instant case, prosecution had not relied on video DVDs prepared by the officer at the crime scene nor had the same certified to make them admissible as electronic evidence. During cross-examination of the officer, defence sought to adduce the DVDs, however, the request was denied by the trial court. The High Court reiterated that a mazahar could not be treated as a previous statement; “what was seen by the person, who prepared the mazahar, are recorded”. Only when the person recording made several versions, could mazahars be treated as previous statement.

Relevant


Section 65B Indian Evidence ACT, 1872 Section 145 Indian Evidence ACT, 1872
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded