Dr. Ashok Dhamija

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,942 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • As far as I understand, the General Diary or GD (also called, Station Diary, in some states) is a confidential document maintained in the police station. Generally speaking, you may not be allowed to get access to it or to read it.

    You may file an RTI application under the Right to Information Act for getting a copy of the General Diary of the police station concerned for a full date or for a specific GD entry. If you want to see a specific entry in the General Diary (and not the whole General Diary for a particular date), there are better chances of you getting it under RTI. Depending on the relevance of such information sought, police may refuse to give the information provided to you under clauses (g) and/or (h) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which are as under:

    “(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

    (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”

    However, if such information sought by you is not coming within the above restrictions, then the police may perhaps provide you the information relating to GD entry.

    If you ask for copy of the full day’s GD entries, the chances are that it may be refused under RTI. However, if you ask for a specific GD entry (more so, if it relates to you and not to third parties), there are better chances of getting copy of such specific GD entry.

    This is what is my understanding of the issues involved in your question. However, you may try seeking the information about GD entries, as desired.

         


    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 power of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) to grant maintenance allowance (to wife or other eligible persons such as child or parents who are unable to maintain themselves) is laid down in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

    The relevant extract of Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. is as under:

    125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.— (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—

    (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

    (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

    (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

    (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

    a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: …”.

    This provision says that the Magistrate can pass order for monthly allowance for maintenance “at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit”.

    It is pertinent to point out that prior to the year 2001, the words “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole” existed after the words “at such monthly rate”. Therefore, prior to the year 2001, there was a maximum limit of ₹ 500 for the maintenance allowance that could be allowed by the JMFC.

    However, by an amendment made to Section 125 in the year 2001, the aforesaid words “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole” were deleted.

    Therefore, now, there is no maximum limit on the amount of monthly maintenance allowance that can be ordered by the Magistrate (JMFC) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and on the income and financial standards of the parties.

    You can also read in this regard: How is the amount of alimony or maintenance computed on divorce?

         


    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.

  • Firstly, please read: Execution of the decree of a consumer court – how to be done?

    As far as I understand if the surety is for the purpose of ensuring the presence of the accused who is on bail, then his property cannot be attached if the accused absconds. However, the bond of the surety may be forfeited and the surety bound by such bond may be called upon to pay the penalty thereof, and in case of a failure to do so, the surety may be ordered to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months; this is in accordance with Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below.

    However, property of the accused himself, who is absconding, may be attached and sold in accordance with legal provisions.

    Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. is as under:

    446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.— (1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited,

    or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited,

    the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.

    Explanation.—A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred.

    (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code:

    Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.

    (3) The Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.

    (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.

    (5) Where any person who has furnished security under Section 106 or Section 117 or Section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under Section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved.”

         


    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.

  • Let me explain the points raised by you with regard to the computation of assets, expenditure and income in a case of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

    (1) Where a car has been taken on loan, the correct principle is to show the value of the car in the assets, the amount of loan taken in income, and the loan repaid so far (including interest, if any) in expenditure.

    (2) If the father of the public servant is himself in service, and if his assets are added to the assets of the son, then the income of the father is also required to be added to the income of the son. The same thing may apply to expenditure too. The reason in such a situation is that a combined comparative chart of income, expenditure and assets is prepared. This may become necessary in a case where the son is indulging in corruption and is suspected to have purchased assets in the name of his father who may himself be a public servant. If the father’s assets are disproportionate and it is suspected that the father himself was also indulging in corruption as a public servant, then sometimes, a separate case of disproportionate assets may be advisable against him, instead of clubbing together his details with those of the son.

    (3) If any benefit has been made available to the public servant under LIC policy, it should be taken as an income.

    (4) Generally, the non-verifiable expenses are calculated at one-third of the gross salary, but taxes paid such as Income Tax are usually deducted while doing this calculation. This principle evolved on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sajjan Singh, AIR 1964 SC 464, but the language used in this judgment is vague, as can be evident from the following extracts from this judgment:

    27. … The total amount received by the appellant throughout the period of his service has been shown to be slightly less than Rs 80,000. The appellant claimed to have received considerable amounts as travelling allowance as Overseer and SDO and also as horse and conveyance allowance.  …”.

    “29. The total receipts by the appellants from his known sources of income thus appear to be about Rs 1,03,000. If nothing out of this had to be spent for maintaining himself and his family during all these years from 1922 to 1952 there might have been ground for saying that the assets in the appellant’s possession, through himself or through his son (Rs 1,20,000) were not disproportionate to his known sources of income. One cannot however live on nothing; and however frugally the appellant may have lived it appears to us clear that at least Rs 100 per month must have been his average expenses throughout these years taking the years of high prices and low prices together. These expenses therefore cut out a big slice of over Rs 36,000 from what he received. The assets of Rs 1,20,000 have therefore to be compared with a net income of Rs 67,000. They are clearly disproportionate indeed highly disproportionate.”

    30. Mr Lall stressed the fact that the legislature had not chosen to indicate what proportion would be considered disproportionate and he argued on that basis that the Court should take a liberal view of the excess of the assets over the receipts from the known sources of income. There is some force in this argument. But taking the most liberal views we do not think it is possible for any reasonable man to say that assets to the extent of Rs 1,20,000 is anything but disproportionate to a net income of Rs 1,03,000 out of which at least Rs 36,000 must have been spent in living expenses.”

    Therefore, from the judgment, it appears that if his salary is considered as ₹ 80,000, then expenses of ₹ 36,000 is much more than one-third. Further, at one place the Supreme Court says that “total receipts by the appellants from his known sources of income thus appear to be about Rs 1,03,000”, and at another place the Court says “a net income of Rs 1,03,000”. But, here also, it is mentioned as “net income” or “total receipts”, which may include other incomes also (i.e., other than salary).

    So, keep all these issues in mind when you claim that one-third of net salary is required to be taken.

    [NOTE: Dr. Ashok Dhamija is the author of a comprehensive book on corruption, namely, Prevention of Corruption Act, Second Edition (2009), appx. 2250 pages, published by LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, New Delhi (ISBN: 978-81-8038-592-6).]

         


    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.

  • As far as I understand, generally, no employer or authority would allow an employee coming late every day and going back early every day. If the employee has a genuine problem, he can speak to the authority concerned for permission to do so. But, if such permission (to come late and leave early, everyday) is not granted, then the employee cannot do so everyday. Action can definitely be taken against such employee in accordance with rules applicable.

    Generally, transfer of an employee may be inevitable sometimes if it is a large organisation, especially in Government. If you are working in Government sector, you can even file a petition challenging your unreasonable transfer in the appropriate tribunal or court. However, it may not be possible for the authority concerned to always keep you posted at one place itself. Of course, it may depend on the nature of the employer, and there are some organisations where the employee would never be transferred.

    But, suppose the employee has been transferred and he has no legal remedy left against such transfer, then he has to abide by the office rules. Any violation of the discipline rules may attract penalty or action, unless such violation is permitted by the authority concerned.

         


    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.

  • It is true that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a Central Act which is applicable throughout India for a cheque dishonour case.

    However, States have their own separate Court Fee Acts which govern as to how much court fee is to be paid for a particular type of court proceeding or case.

    For example, Maharashtra has the Bombay Court-Fees Act, 1959, which lays down court fee rates for various types of proceedings in courts in Maharashtra.

    Likewise, in Tamil Nadu, there is a separate law, namely, the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which governs the court fee rates in Tamil Nadu.

    Similarly, other states have their own court fee Acts.

    It is due to this reason that different states have different court fee for a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 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.

  • Under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, is required to provide the information within thirty days of the receipt of the request. If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer fails to give decision on the request for information within the said period of 30 days, he shall be deemed to have refused the request.

    Therefore, if the RTI information is not provided within 30 days, it shall be deemed that he has refused to provide the information requested.

    In such a situation, under Section 19 of the said Act, the applicant seeking information may, within 30 days days, file an appeal to the designated senior officer (who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer), i.e., the appellate authority, in such department from which the information was sought. However, such appeal may be admitted even after the expiry of the period of thirty days if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant / applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

    Further, there is also a provision for filing of a second appeal against the decision of the appellate authority. Such second appeal can be filed with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be. Such second appeal can be filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received from the appellate authority. In appropriate cases, delay in filing the second appeal beyond the period of 90 can be condoned by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant / applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

         


    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 limitation period for filing an appeal before the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is 90 days, generally. This applies for appeal filed by the State or by the victim.

    However, if the case was instituted on the basis of a complaint (i.e., a private complaint case), then the limitation period for filing such appeal is 60 days if such appeal is filed by the complainant (who may also sometimes be the victim).

         


    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: Where can appeal be filed in a compoundable summons trial case? #4922

    This is what is laid down in Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

    “(w) “summons case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case;”

    “(x) “warrant case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;”

    A combined reading of the above two definitions shows that a summons case means a case relating to an offence where the imprisonment is less than or up to two years. These are comparatively minor offences.

    Trial of summons cases is conducted under Chapter 20 of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 251 to 259). This trial is conducted by Magistrates.

    Now, as per the provisions of Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate in a trial can be filed in the Sessions Court.

    Therefore, appeal in a summons trial case can be filed before the Sessions Court, irrespective of whether or not such offence is a compoundable offence.

         


    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.

  • Where the application for grant of bail in an offence has been rejected by the High Court, you can immediately file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging such order of the High Court.

    In fact, such SLP is required to be filed within a limitation period of 90 days from the date of order of the High Court (time actually taken for supply of certified copy of the High Court is excluded from this time period of 90 days). If you delay filing the SLP beyond this period of 90 days, then you may have to also file an application for condonation of delay along with the SLP. Then, it is up to the Supreme Court whether or not to condone the delay, depending on facts of the case.

    Thus, you have a right to file the SLP in Supreme Court immediately after rejection of bail application by the High Court.

    However, whether the Supreme Court would immediately grant bail in such SLP would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Every case is not similar. In most cases, the SLP may be dismissed on the first date itself without issuing notice to the respondents. Where a notice is issued by the Supreme Court in the SLP, even there generally it may take a few months to get the final order (notice is issued to respondents to file their reply and then hearing is conducted on merits); sometimes, it may take even years. It all depends on the facts of each case.

    Dacoity (under Section 395 IPC) is considered a serious offence. Therefore, chances of getting bail at an early date would generally be correspondingly less. However, as I mentioned above, it ultimately depends on facts of each 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.

  • The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 324 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) is imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both.

    The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 325 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt) is imprisonment for 7 years, and fine.

    The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 506 IPC (Criminal intimidation) is generally imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. However, if the offence under Section 506 IPC has been registered where the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, etc., then the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both.

    Section 34 of IPC provides for punishment to persons who commit a criminal act together in furtherance of common intention of all. In such case, each of such persons will be liable for the same punishment as if that criminal act is done by that person alone (even if the act was not done by that person alone). This section is as under:

    34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

    Therefore, the maximum punishment for an offence under Section 34 IPC would depend upon the main offence along with which this section has been applied. For example, if two persons are charged under Section 34 IPC for having committed an offence under Section 325 IPC [i.e., Section 325 r/w 34 IPC], then both of them would be liable to the punishment prescribed under Section 325 IPC.

    I may also point out that what has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs is the maximum punishment that can be imposed under law for these offences. However, in practice, generally, much less punishment is actually awarded. The actual punishment awarded depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and various aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in the 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.

  • There is a judgment of the Supreme Court which directly covers the question raised by you. So, let me refer to this judgment and reproduce relevant text from it.

    In the case of Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, 1969 Cri LJ 271 : AIR 1969 SC 40, the Supreme Court held that under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, it is clear that the assessment order determines the total income of the assessee, and the tax payable, on the basis of such assessment. The assessment order has to be served, on the assessee. The tax is demanded by the issue of a notice, under the Act; but the tax demanded is on the basis of the assessment order communicated to an assessee. It was held that the communicated order of assessment, received by an assessee is 'property', since it is of great importance, to an assessee, as containing a computation, of his total assessable income and as a determination of his tax liability. The Supreme Court held that:

    “…the word “property”, occurring in Section 420 IPC, does not necessarily mean that the thing, of which a delivery is dishonestly desired by the person who cheats, must have a money value or a market value, in the hand of the person cheated. Even if the thing has no money value, in the hand of the person cheated, but becomes a thing of value, in the hand of the person, who may get possession of it, as a result of the cheating practised by him, it would still fall within the connotation of the term ‘property’, in Section 420 IPC.”

    The Supreme Court further held that:

    “Communication, or service of an assessment order, is part of the procedure of the assessment itself. But it can be held that, if the necessary allegations are established, the accused have dishonestly induced the Income Tax Officer, to deliver the particular property viz. the assessment order, as passed by him, in and by which a considerably low amount has been determined, as the total income of the assessee, on the basis of which the amount of tax, has been fixed. Nor are we impressed with the contention, that the deception, if at all, is practised, not when the assessment order is delivered, but at the stage, when the computation, of the total income, is made, by the Income Tax Officer. The process of “cheating”, employed by an assessee, if successful, would have the result of dishonestly inducing the Income Tax Officer to make a wrong assessment order and communicate the same to an assessee.”

    It was held that the case was fit for framing of a charge under Section 420 IPC.

    Similarly, it can be said that if a fake assessment order has been obtained or produced (may be with connivance of the staff of the Income tax department, though you have not mentioned necessary details of the case), it deprives the department of the tax that is due or it benefits the assessee by avoiding payment of proper amount of tax. So, it can be said to be delivery of a property or of a valuable security. Thus, in appropriate circumstances, if other ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are fulfilled, such an offence may have been committed. The actual answer will depend on the detailed facts of the case, and you may consult some lawyer by showing him all relevant documents.

         


    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.

  • Though it depends on the detailed facts of the case whether an offence under Section 337 of the IPC ("Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others") could be made out, from the facts mentioned by you it is possible that such an offence may be made out. If the doctor did not have sufficient training in conducting surgery of that type, and/or if he had no such professional qualifications or experience, then it may be termed as a rash or negligent act.

    Section 337 of Indian Penal Code is reproduced as under:

    337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

    In somewhat similar situation, in the case of Emperor v. Gulam Hyder Punjabi, AIR 1915 Bom 101 (Bom) : 1915 Cri LJ 437 (Bom), the accused, a Hakim, had performed an operation with an ordinary pair of scissors, on the outer side of the upper lid of the complainant's right eye. The operation was needless and performed in a primitive way, the most ordinary precautions being entirely neglected. In such circumstances, the Bombay High Court had held that he was liable for conviction under Section 337 of IPC.

         


    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 answer to your question would depend on facts of the case.

    Offence of defamation is defined in Section 499 of the IPC and it is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. There are several exceptions laid down in Section 499 IPC in which situation, the offence of defamation may not be made out. Some of the exceptions, which may perhaps be applicable in your case (depending on detailed facts), may perhaps be – accusation made in good faith in a case in court, opinion expressed on merits of a case in good faith, imputations made in good faith for protection of one’s own interests, etc. The relevant exceptions in Section 499 IPC (which may perhaps be applicable in your case, depending on the detailed facts) are as under:

    Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

    Illustrations

    (a) A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest.” A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

    (b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.

    *** *** ***

    Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

    Illustration

    If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father—A is within this exception.

    Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

    Illustrations

    (a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

    (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.”

    So, it will depend on the detailed facts of your case. Whether the accusation of impotency is completely false, without any supporting evidence? Was it made in good faith? Was it unnecessarily publicized outside the court too? And, many other relevant facts.

    You may consult some lawyer by showing your detailed facts to ascertain whether it would be advisable to file a defamation case and whether your spouse’s statement of your impotency is covered under the above or any other exceptions in the defamation offence.     


    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: Non bailable warrant for not paying Bank loan emis #4906

    Non-payment of bank loan EMIs is basically a civil matter for which remedies are available in the civil court or may be in DRT. Issuance of non-bailable warrant (NBW) in such matter is not done. You have said that NBW has been issued due to your non-appearance in the matter; usually, that is also done in a civil court; if you remain absent, the civil case would be decided against you. So, it is doubtful whether NBW would have been issued in this matter. Yes, if the bank has lodged some criminal complaint against you (such as for cheating), then it may be a different issue.

    In any case, try to ascertain the details. If you have a genuine reason for your non-appearance (such as being in jail for 3 months due to rape case), then you can explain that to the court and get the NBW cancelled. You can also negotiate with the bank and offer to make payment of the remaining instalments and clear the loan.

         


    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 through 15 (of 1,942 total)