Dr. Ashok Dhamija

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,141 through 1,155 (of 1,897 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • You have mentioned that the officer who initiated the disciplinary inquiry against you, is not competent to do so. You have also mentioned that the inquiry officer has planned to proceed with the inquiry and the higher authority is also not doing anything in this regard. In such situation, the only remedy would be to challenge the disciplinary inquiry against you in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) since it has been initiated by incompetent authority, as per your version. You may file an Original Application (OA) in CAT to quash and set aside such inquiry and meanwhile obtain a stay against the inquiry.

    As regards the issue of the officer himself facing departmental action, that is a separate issue between him and the government. Your case will be decided on the merits of your own case, including on the issue of whether the officer who initiated the disciplinary inquiry against you was competent to do so.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Remedy against breach of promise #2056

    This is a clear case of breach of contract. Depending on the nature of the contract and the nature of the breach, there are several remedies available for breach of contract, such as award of damages, specific performance, rescission, and restitution, etc. But, in your situation, keeping in view the nature of the contract and its breach, you may have to file a suit for damages (since the date of event is already over).

    Your case is covered under the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act, under which you can claim damages for the loss suffered by you due to breach of the promise / contract by the dancer. This section is reproduced below, for your information:

    73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.— When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

    Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.

    Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.—When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.

    Explanation.—In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.

    Illustrations

    (a) A contracts to sell and deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B, at a certain price to be paid on delivery. A breaks his promise. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the sum, if any, by which the contract price falls short of the price for which B might have obtained 50 maunds of salpetre of like quality at the time when the salpetre ought to have been delivered.

    (b) A hires B’s ship to go to Bombay, and there takes on board, on the first of January, a cargo, which, A is to provide and to bring it to Calcutta, the freight to be paid when earned. B’s ship does not go to Bombay, but A has opportunities of procuring suitable conveyance for the cargo upon terms as advantageous as those on which he had chartered the ship. A avails himself of those opportunities, but is put to trouble and expense in doing so. A is entitled to receive compensation from B in respect of such trouble and expense.

    (c) A contracts to buy of B, at a stated price, 50 maunds of rice, no time being fixed for delivery. A afterwards informs B that he will not accept the rice if tendered to him. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the amount, if any, by which the contract price exceeds that which B can obtain for the rice at the time when A informs B that he will not accept it.

    (d) A contracts to buy B’s ship for 60,000 rupees, but breaks his promise. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the excess, if any, of the contract price over the price which B can obtain for the ship at the time of the breach of promise.

    (e) A, the owner of a boat, contracts with B to take a cargo of jute to Mirzapur, for sale at that place, starting on a specified day. The boat, owing to some avoidable cause, does not start at the time appointed, whereby the arrival of the cargo at Mirzapur is delayed beyond the time when it would have arrived if the boat had sailed according to the contract. After that date, and before the arrival of the cargo, the price of jute falls. The measure of the compensation payable to B by A is the difference between the price which B could have obtained for the cargo at Mirzapur at the time when it would have arrived if forwarded in due course, and its market price at the time when it actually arrived.

    (f) A contracts to repair B’s house in a certain manner, and receive payment in advance. A repairs the house, but not according to contract. B is entitled to recover from A the cost of making the repairs that conform to the contract.

    (g) A contracts to let his ship to B for a year, from the first of January, for a certain price. Freights rise, and on the first of January, the hire obtainable for the ship is higher than the contract price. A breaks his promise. He must pay to B, by way of compensation, a sum equal to the difference between the contract price and the price for which B could hire a similar ship for a year on and from the first of January.

    (h) A contracts to supply B with a certain quantity of iron at a fixed price, being a higher price than that for which A could procure and deliver the iron. B wrongfully refuses to receive the iron. B must pay to A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the iron and the sum for which A could have obtained and delivered it.

    (i) A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed without delay, to A’s mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of the machine. B unreasonably delays the delivery of the machine, and A in consequence, loses a profitable contract with the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the Government contract.

    (j) A, having contracted with B to supply B with 1,000 tons of iron at 100 rupees a ton, to be delivered at a stated time, contracts with C for the purchase of 1,000 tons of iron at 80 rupees a ton, telling C that he does so for the purpose of performing his contract with B. C fails to perform his contract with A, who cannot procure other iron, and B, in consequence, rescinds the contract. C must pay to A 20,000 rupees, being the profit which A would have made by the performance of his contract with B.

    (k) A contracts with B to make and deliver to B, by a fixed day, for a specified price a certain piece of machinery. A does not deliver the piece of machinery at the time specified, and, in consequence of this, B is obliged to procure another at a higher price than that which he was to have paid to A, and is prevented from performing a contract which B had made with a third person at the time of his contract with A (but which had not been then communicated to A), and is compelled to make compensation for breach of that contract. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the piece of machinery and the sum paid by B for another, but not the sum paid by B to the third person by way of compensation.

    (l) A, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that B may give possession of it at that time to C, to whom B has contracted to let it. A is informed of the contract between B and C. A builds the house so badly that, before the first of January, it falls down and has to be rebuilt by B, who, in consequence, loses the rent which he was to have received from C, and is obliged to make compensation to C for the breach of his contract. A must make compensation to B for the cost of rebuilding the house, for the rent lost, and for the compensation made to C.

    (m) A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.

    (n) A contracts to pay a sum of money to B on a day specified. A does not pay the money on that day; B, in consequence of not receiving the money on that day, is unable to pay his debts, and is totally ruined. A is not liable to make good to B anything except the principal sum he contracted to pay, together with interest up to the day of payment.

    (o) A contracts to deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B on the first of January, at a certain price. B, afterwards, before the first of January, contracts to sell the saltpetre to C at a price higher than the market price of the first of January. A breaks his promise. In estimating the compensation payable by A to B, the market price of the first of January, and not the profit which would have arisen to B from the sale to C, is to be taken into account.

    (p) A contracts to sell and deliver 500 bales of cotton to B on a fixed day. A knows nothing of B’s mode of conducting his business. A breaks his promise, and B, having no cotton, is obliged to close his mill. A is not responsible to B for the loss caused to B by the closing of the mill.

    (q) A contracts to sell and deliver to B, on the first of January, certain cloth which B intends to manufacture into caps of a particular kind, for which there is no demand, except at that season. The cloth is not delivered till after the appointed time, and too late to be used that year in making caps, B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the cloth and its market price at the time of delivery, but not the profits which he expected to obtain by making caps, nor the expenses which he has been put to in making preparation for the manufacture.

    (r) A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A’s ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way of deposit, one-half of his passage-money. The ship does not sail on the first of January, and B, after being in consequence, detained in Calcutta for some time, and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest, and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon for the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late.”

     

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Opposing Execution Application #2055

    It is not clear from the limited facts mentioned by you as to what exactly was the order of the tribunal (or court) in the OA. Was it for “considering” the claim of pay parity on merits, or a specific order of granting pay parity? Secondly, in the reply of the respondents during the OA, whether they had clearly mentioned that they would grant pay parity on promotion in the grade of Deputy Director (with no conditions attached), or they had mentioned that they would consider it on merits, or that the claim was premature and can be raised and considered only after you are promoted as DD? Further, after your promotion as DD, whether the respondents “considered” your claim for pay parity, or they did not consider it at all? One situation is that they considered your claim and rejected it. Another situation could be that they did not consider your claim at all.

    Depending on all such facts, there may also be a possibility of filing a contempt petition against the respondents for not complying with the orders of the tribunal.

    Further, generally speaking, it should not be possible for the respondents to take fresh grounds for opposing your claim during the execution application, when in the OA they had not raised all those issues and had not opposed your claim on the basis of which the order of the tribunal came to be passed during the OA. As you rightly mentioned, it may amount to review of the previous order, which is not permissible in the execution application. I am writing this on the basis of the limited facts mentioned in your case. In such a situation, you may strongly object to the raising of these issues at such late stage, and if you can convince the tribunal, the objections of the respondents may be rejected by the tribunal and the order may be passed in your favour.

    You may consult some local lawyer by showing all your papers, if you have not done so already. Only a lawyer who has studied your papers in detail can advise you in the best possible manner.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Permanent exemption from appearing in cheque bounce case #2054

    Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives power to the court to exempt the personal appearance of the accused where the court is satisfied that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, etc. Section 205 Cr.P.C. may also be relevant in this regard.

    Accordingly, if you so wish, you may file an application to the court for personal exemption on the grounds mentioned in your question and citing your hardships. Generally speaking, the court may agree to exempt your personal attendance in the case, except when your personal attendance is essential for the case. It is up to the court to grant you exemption on date to date basis or till further orders.

    Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:

    317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.—(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.

    (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.”

     

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • What is written in my reply to your question is on the basis of the rules applicable to the Central Government servants. Generally speaking, rules for other government servants are similar.

    Under Rule 10(5)(a) of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. However, the suspension has to be reviewed from time to time. For example, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made initially shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.

    So, subject to the review of suspension and its extension on such review periodically, as mentioned above, a suspension can be continued indefinitely and no maximum time limit has been laid down in rules. However, in case of suspension in respect of a matter in which a departmental inquiry is to be initiated, please also see: Suspension order not to extend beyond 3 months if charge-sheet is not served, says Supreme Court.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • Commuted pension received by a Government servant is exempted from payment of Income Tax under the provisions of Section 10(10-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, you will not have to pay any income on receipt of the commuted pension. The relevant extract from this section is reproduced as under:

    10. Incomes not included in total income.—In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included—

    *** ***

    (10-A)(i) any payment in commutation of pension received under the Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules of the Central Government or under any similar scheme applicable to the members of the civil services of the Union or holders of posts connected with defence or of civil posts under the Union (such members or holders being persons not governed by the said rules) or to the members of the all-India services or to the members of the defence services or to the members of the civil services of a State or holders of civil posts under a State or to the employees of a local authority or a corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act;

    (ii) any payment in commutation of pension received under any scheme of any other employer, to the extent it does not exceed—

    (a) in a case where the employee receives any gratuity, the commuted value of one-third of the pension which he is normally entitled to receive, and

    (b) in any other case, the commuted value of one-half of such pension,

    such commuted value being determined having regard to the age of the recipient, the state of his health, the rate of interest and officially recognised tables of mortality;

    (iii) any payment in commutation of pension received from a fund under clause (23-AAB);”

     

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: False case under section 498A and 406 IPC by wife #2051

    Please remember that when the police closes a case on completion of the investigation, it can mainly be on one of the following grounds:

    • No offence is made out on the basis of the facts of the case.
    • Sufficient evidence is not available to prove the case.
    • The complaint was false (and, in this situation also, police may recommend prosecution of complainant for filing false complaint or may recommend a closure of case simpliciter without recommending prosecution of the complainant).

    You have not made it clear in your question as to on what ground (out of the above), the police closed the case under Section 406 IPC by not charge-sheeting you under that section.

    But, it should be clear that it is not in every case which is closed by police that prosecution can be filed against the complainant for having filed a false complaint. The case may have been closed on some other ground also, as pointed out above by me.

    In any case, given the type of imperfect criminal justice system we have, you should feel happy that charge sheet was not filed under Section 406 IPC. But, since charge sheet has been filed against you under Section 498-A IPC, your first priority should be to face that case. You should have patience and wait before jumping to the conclusion. It would only be in very exceptional cases (where there is strong evidence to prove it) that one should go ahead with prosecuting the complainant for filing a false complaint, given the experience with our criminal justice system.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Can victim oppose bail petition of accused in court? #2050

    Yes, the victim can oppose the grant of bail to the accused by appearing at the time of hearing of the bail application filed by the accused. The victim can appear in person or through an advocate. However, it should be noted that case has to be argued mainly by the public prosecutor on behalf of the state, and victim’s advocate can assist the public prosecutor or address the court on this issue. Ultimately, it is up to the court whether or not to grant bail to the accused, but the victim can oppose the grant of bail and assist the public prosecutor in this regard.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Can an accused who is minor claim anticipatory bail? #2049

    Whatever benefits are available to persons under the Criminal Procedure Code are also available to minors, including the benefit of anticipatory bail. These benefits are not denied to minors. In fact, on the other hand, there are special provisions for grant of bail to a minor. For example, under the Proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., there is a special provision empowering grant of bail to a minor (who is below the age of 16 years) even in serious offences which are punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment.

    In fact, even these general provisions under the Cr.P.C. are not needed in the case of a minor, since there is a special Act to cover the cases of minors who have committed any offences. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, makes special provisions for minors. For example, Section 12 of this Act provides for grant of bail to a minor even if he has committed a non-bailable offence; and, even in the exceptional situations (which are generally for the benefit of the minor himself) when he is not released on bail, he is not kept in jail or police lockup, but in observation home, etc. So, in fact, there should be no need to apply for anticipatory bail in the case of a minor, since there are liberal provisions for them in the law, obviating the need for anticipatory bail.

    Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is reproduced below:

    12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.— (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

    Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

    (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

    (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

    (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.”

     

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Whether TDS for income tax can be deducted on pension? #2048

    Yes, TDS is required to be deducted on payment of pension. Let me first point out that this answer is for deduction of TDS (Tax Deduction at Source) for “pension” and NOT for “family pension”, since they are treated differently under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income tax treatment for “pension” and “family pension” is different.

    “Pension” is generally a periodical allowance or stipend granted on account of past service. Pension is a compensation for past service. It owes its origin to a past employer-employee or master-servant relationship. It is paid on the basis of earlier relationship of an agreement of service as opposed to an agreement for service. This relationship ends only on the death of the employee.

    It is pertinent to point out that “pension” received from a former employer is taxable under the head “salary” since Section 17 of Income Tax Act specifically lays down in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) that “any annuity or pension” is included in “salary”. Therefore, “pension” is taxed in the same way as “salary” is taxed.

    Now, Section 192 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction of TDS for payment of salary. Since pension is also salary, as mentioned above, therefore, TDS is required to be deducted on payment of pension in accordance with Section 192 of the Income Tax Act.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • in reply to: Evidence of printout of screenshot of WhatsApp messages #2047

    This will come under electronic records, which have to be proved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Note that mobile phone is also considered to a computer for the purposes of this section, which is reproduced below:

    65-B. Admissibility of electronic records.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

    (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely—

    (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;

    (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;

    (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

    (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.

    (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—

    (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

    (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

    (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

    (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,

    all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.

    (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—

    (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

    (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;

    (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,

    and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.

    (5) For the purposes of this section,—

    (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;

    (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

    (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.

    Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.”

    The conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) have to be satisfied for the electronic record to be admissible in evidence, and the certificate mentioned in sub-section (4) has to be furnished along with the electronic record.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • The issue raised by you is covered in Sections 42 and 43 of the Contract Act, 1872, which are reproduced below:

    42. Devolution of joint liabilities.—When two or more persons have made a joint promise, then, unless a contrary intention appears by the contract, all such persons, during their joint lives, and, after the death of any of them, his representatives jointly with the survivor or survivors, and, after the death of the last survivor, the representatives of all jointly, must fulfil the promise.”

    43. Any one of joint promisors may be compelled to perform.—When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.

    Each promisor may compel contribution.—Each of two or more joint promisors may compel every other joint promisor to contribute equally with himself to the performance of the promise, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.

    Sharing of loss by default in contribution.—If any one of two or more joint promisors makes default in such contribution, the remaining joint promisors must bear the loss arising from such default in equal shares.

    Explanation.—Nothing in this section shall prevent a surety from recovering, from his principal, payments made by the surety on behalf of the principal, or entitle the principal to recover anything from the surety on account of payments made by the principal.”

    Above provisions show that you can sue B for the whole amount of loan given by you jointly to A and B. In the worst scenario, you should be able to recover the proportionate share of the loan from B.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. This means that even one witness may be sufficient to prove a particular fact. Of course, the credibility of the witness (i.e., whether he is an independent witness or an interested witness) may also be relevant for this purpose.

    In view of the above, even if one witness becomes hostile and does not support your case, you still have two other witnesses to support the case in addition to your own evidence. This should generally be sufficient to prove the case. Of course, your own witness becoming hostile will adversely affect the case since it casts doubt on the case. But, if other witnesses are supporting your case and if they are consistent in their evidence, it may generally speaking be sufficient to prove your case.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • In Delhi (and probably also in some other states / cities), the police authorities have issued guidelines / notifications making it compulsory for the landlords to get full identification details along with photograph, from the tenants, and seek police verification of the tenants, before renting out premises to them. This is mainly due to the security reasons. So, there should be nothing unusual about this if your landlord is asking for KYC details from you.

    Even otherwise, usually it is desirable for the landlords to verify the identity details of the tenants whom they don’t know. In fact, the registration of the tenancy agreements in the office of the sub-registrar (which is compulsory if the lease period is more than one year) requires the PAN / Aadhaar numbers of both the tenant and the landlord and also their photographs, fingerprints, etc.

    Further, one can understand that you don’t have PAN card as you’re a student, but not having Aadhaar card may be surprising given that already more than 99% of the adult citizens have registered for Aadhaar by now and you are a college student who should not have been in the last 1% of the adult population (when even almost all illiterate people have also got registered for Aadhaar). Aadhaar is being made compulsory for most of the schemes and facilities in India. It is, therefore, advisable that you should register yourself for Aadhaar at the earliest.

    For the present, if you do not have Aadhaar and PAN card for taking the room on rent, you may provide copy of the college identity card with photo and it may perhaps be accepted.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

  • Usually it would not happen, i.e., not relieving a government servant who has been transferred to another post. Sometimes, due to some administrative exigencies (and sometimes also due to some other reasons, including personal ones), a transferred government servant may not be relieved early to join the new place of posting. The way you have mentioned that your head of the office has not relieved you on transfer even after 6 months, there may be a possibility that he might have talked to the transferring authority and may have taken his permission (written or oral) to not relieve you early, or may even have requested for the cancellation of the transfer order citing some reasons, including the administrative exigencies. It may be advisable to make a written representation to the head of office as well as to the transferring authority and you may also inform them about the hardships being faced by you due to the uncertainty. You may also seek a personal appointment with the transferring authority to personally apprise him of your difficulties. If you are seriously aggrieved, you may even consider approaching the appropriate court or tribunal (such as Central Administrative Tribunal, if you are a central government servant); however, please note that courts and tribunals will generally not interfere in the transfer matters.

         


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,141 through 1,155 (of 1,897 total)