Post has attachment
DELAY IN DELIVERY OF FLAT (HOME) - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY LEGAL RECOURSE !!

1) Delay in delivery of possession in a building is one of the most commonly faced and frustrating problems for a property buyer. You should gather evidence like advertisement brochure, booking receipt, payment details, email exchanges, photographs, agreements, etc

2) The builder should be served with a legal notice demanding the possession of property and compensation for delay in completion of construction.

3) You can move consumer forum against the builder and seek orders to direct builder to execute regd sale deed in your favour and to deliver possession of flat.

4) You should get occupation certificate too issued by the corporation authorities certifying the fitness of the flat for occupying it.

5) You should seek interest for delay in delivery of possession and compensation for mental torture undergone by you.

6) However, if it seems that the flat will be delivered sooner, even if delayed, then alternative take possession of the flat and then move consumer forum against builder and seek interest for delay in delivery of possession , compensation for mental torture undergone by you.

7) Please note that the builder cannot charge for car parking separately. It comes under common area.

Contact: ASK@ChennaiLawyerS.NET (0)98849 25464

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity.

Refusal to Consummate the Marriage - A ground for Divorce ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwjBDUvh6fLpSmFxcU8wdjMwcEE/view?usp=sharing

Refusal to Consummate the Marriage - A ground for Divorce ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwjBDUvh6fLpSmFxcU8wdjMwcEE/view?usp=sharing

What do you mean by Cognizable and Non-Cognizable offences ?

Cognizable offences: An offence, where a police offer can arrest without a warrant.
 Non-cognizable offences: An offence, where a police officer can arrest only with a warrant.

I have highlighted the basic difference above. Other differences are more of legal process.

CrPC 482: Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code


Can a FIR be Quashed ?


High Courts of the respective state can quash the FIR filed in the Police Station of its jurisdiction under certain circumstances.

Section 43 (b) of the I.T.Act, 2000

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,-
downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer database or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;……….”
he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.

What is the difference between Bail Bond and Personal Bond ?

Bail bond is physically posting the cash amount with the court. Personal bond is showing assets that cover the requisite bond amount - letting the court know what it can go after to recover the amount (in case you run away).
In both cases, it is a bond - meaning it is fully refundable as long as you comply with the proceedings of the court.

Section 41 of CrPC
When police may arrest without warrant
 Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any
person—
(a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable
complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable
suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned; or
(b) who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse
shall lie on such person, any implement of house-breaking; or
(c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the
State Government; or
(d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be
stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence
with reference to such thing; or
(e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped,
or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or
(f) who is reasonable suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the
Union; or
(g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made,
or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having
been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in
India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law
relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in
India; or
(h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub-section
(5) of section 365; or
(i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from
another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and
the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that
the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the
requisition
(2) Any officer in charge of a police station may, in like manner, arrest or cause to be arrested
any person, belonging to one or more of the categories of person specified in section 109 or
section 110

Section 41 in THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869

Power to make orders as to custody of children in suit for separation.

In any suit for obtaining a judicial separation the Court may from time to time, before making its decree, make such interim orders, and may make such provision in the decree, as it deems proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of the minor children, the marriage of whose parents is the subject of such suit, and may, if it thinks fit, direct proceedings to be taken for placing such children under the protection of the said Court.

Approval to introduce the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 in Parliament
The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has approved the proposal to introduce the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 in Parliament. The amendments are focused on clarifying jurisdiction related issues for filing cases of offence committed under Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (NI Act).
The main amendment included in this is the stipulation that the offence of rejection/return of cheque u/s 138 of NI Act will be enquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for payment is situated.
Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the offence pertaining to dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the drawer’s account on which the cheque is drawn for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 provides for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. The object of the NI Act is to encourage the usage of the cheque and enhancing the credibility of the instrument so that normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured.
The clarification of jurisdictional issues may be desirable from the equity point of view as this would be in the interests of the complainant and would also ensure a fair trial.
The clarity on jurisdictional issue for trying cases of cheque bouncing would increase the credibility of the cheque as a financial instrument. This would help trade and commerce in general and allow lending institutions, including banks, to continue to extend financing to the economy, without the apprehension of the loan default on account of bouncing of a cheque.
Action will be initiated to introduce the Negotiable instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 in Parliament in the second phase of the current Session of Parliament.
Background
 Various financial institutions and industry associations have expressed difficulties, arising out of the recent legal interpretation of the place of jurisdiction for filing cases under Section 138 to be the place of drawers’ bank by the Supreme Court. To address the difficulties faced by the payee or the lender of the money in filing the case under Section 138 of the NI Act, because of which, large number of cases were stuck, the jurisdiction for offence under Section 138 has been clearly defined. The Bill provides for filing of cases only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for payment, is situated. Further, where a complaint has been filed against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under the new scheme of jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints arising out of Section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court, irrespective of whether those cheques were presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. Further, it has been provided that if more than one prosecution is filed against the same drawer of cheques before different courts, when this fact is brought to the notice of the court, the court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction as per the new scheme of jurisdiction.
Wait while more posts are being loaded