Dr. Ashok Dhamija
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateWhat you are basically asking is whether you can discontinue your lawyer in your case and pursue the case as “party-in-person”. Yes, this is permissible. You can withdraw your authorisation to the lawyer and appear in person in your case. You need not be a lawyer for fighting your own case.
Please check from the consumer forum as to what format or application you would require for this purpose. It will not be a vakalatnama, because that is prepared to authorise a lawyer (vakil) to appear for you. In Supreme Court, a party in person is required to file a Memo of Appearance, which is a half-page format. Please check in the consumer forum about the formalities, if any, for you to appear in person. Generally speaking, there should not be any formalities. But, since you were having a lawyer earlier, you may have to inform the forum about withdrawal of your authorisation to him (an application may perhaps be required for this purpose).
With regard t your second question, both the things can be done simultaneously also. You just inform the forum (by application or otherwise, as required) about your appearance in person, and then immediately you can file your written arguments or whatever other pleadings you want to submit.
While it is not possible for me to comment accurately on your third question, in the absence of having seen your detailed documents, generally speaking, you can file new evidence with the permission of the court / forum at such a stage also. It may, of course, lead to some delay, if the forum permits you to file new evidence at such stage.
I cannot comment as to whether you should seek extension of time on next date. It is your decision depending on facts and circumstances of 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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateAs I have pointed out in my answer to a similar question – Time limit to complete investigation in FIR, generally speaking, the law does not prescribe any maximum time period for completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. Please read that answer for more details and to learn about the exceptions.
You have not mentioned about the nature of your case. But, as I mentioned above, generally speaking there is no time limit to complete investigation. It depends on the nature of the case. Some offences need longer periods of time to complete the investigation, such as economic offences and documentary type cases.
FIR will remain valid and it does not lapse with time. On completion of investigation, police has to file either a charge sheet or a closure report in the court under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Till that time, the investigation is considered to be ongoing and validly being done.
As regards arrest, it is not mandatory for the police to arrest the accused person in each and every case. It again depends on the nature of the case and also on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In fact, nowadays, after the amendments to the Cr.P.C. made in the year 2009/2010, it has been made more difficult for police to arrest a person who is involved in an offence where the maximum punishment prescribed under law is up to 7 years imprisonment; the arrest powers of police in such cases are now curtailed to some extent.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 18, 2018 at 9:00 pm in reply to: Alimony amount – how much is to be paid to wife in given situation? #4494Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateI have answered a similar question in detail which is available at: How is the amount of alimony or maintenance computed on divorce?
That answer covers your question, so please read it. As I have pointed out in that answer, based on a variety of factors, which depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of each case (i.e., there is no hard and fast formula), the amount to be provided as alimony or maintenance is decided by the court. It is usually experienced that the maintenance is generally fixed at 1/4 to 1/3 of the income of the husband, though this is not a hard and fast formula and the amount may be higher or lower than this in certain cases.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateI have already replied to a similar question on this issue: Is it an offence to hold two Indian passports and what punishment?
Please read that, as it mostly answers your question. However, please also see my answer to the question: Travelling to two opposing countries – requirement for 2 passports, since in the circumstances mentioned in that answer, it may be possible to get two passports issued for the limited purposes mentioned therein.
With regard to the two situations mentioned by you in your question, wherein there is suppression of material facts while obtaining the second passport, it may not be legally permissible in both these situations to hold two passports and the person concerned can be punished under law for such 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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 14, 2018 at 10:29 am in reply to: grant of NOC for passport for Govt employee facing disciplinary proceedings #4472Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateMinistry of external affairs guidelines (quoted in my main answer) may apply to you in your capacity as Bihar Government employee.
DOPT guidelines are basically for the Central Government employees. You will have to check the relevant guidelines for Bihar Government employees from the concerned Government.
Above guidelines are clear that NOC may be withheld if an employee of central government is facing a disciplinary proceedings. It is a discretion, which you can challenge in court, if it not exercised by due application of mind, or relevant considerations have not been kept in mind, or extraneous considerations were taken in to account, or if it was exercised in a mala fide manner, etc.
But, the fact remains that this discretion is exercised in view of the government employee being subject to the conduct rules, and also because the government has the power to refuse leave or to refuse permission to go abroad (sometimes, even to leave headquarters).
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 14, 2018 at 8:51 am in reply to: Filing FIR in wrong IPC Sections for a person who went missing #4471Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateIt is not possible to fully understand the facts of your case from your question. There appears to be misunderstanding of sections quoted by you.
You have mentioned Section 155 IPC, but it relates to “Liability of person for whose benefit riot is committed”. This is completely unrelated to the facts of your case.
Another section mentioned by you is Section 18 IPC, which defines “India”, so again it is completely unconnected with your case.
It appears that police would taken the report of your going missing under Section 155 Cr.P.C. (and not IPC), which means that it is a report for a non-cognizable offence. At some places, police would generally record reports of persons missing as non-cognizable offence under Section 155 Cr.P.C., till it is confirmed that the person has actually been kidnapped / abducted or that some other regular cognizable offence is committed.
Though I am not fully aware of the detailed facts of your case, it appears that when you returned, police might have got the medical examination done to confirm whether some offence was committed when you were missing. Though usually statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would not be recorded in such case, if they have really done it in your case, it is possible mainly for the purpose of recording the statement before a magistrate so that tomorrow fresh allegations would not be made.
What I have mentioned above is pure guess work, looking at the circumstances, because your facts are not accurate. You are advised to ask the police itself about the accurate facts and the sections, etc. I don’t understand why can’t you directly ask the police about these things, instead of asking such vague question on a forum like this.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 14, 2018 at 8:36 am in reply to: Can the Supreme Court modify a High Court judgment at the SLP stage? #4469Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateUsually, when a case is decided at the SLP stage, the Supreme Court would formally grant leave in the same order by mentioning “Leave granted” (or something similar) and then deciding the case in the same order.
As I have mentioned in Success Rate of Review Petition and Curative Petition in Supreme Court, the chances of success in a curative petition are extremely low.
You can know more about curative petition in Supreme Court AOR Examination – Leading Cases – Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
It is difficult to give advice on facts of an individual case without seeing the detailed papers of the case (please see our Forum Guidelines). Please consult your lawyer on the facts of 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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateHe is called the District Judge. In most places, he is called the District & Sessions Judge.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 13, 2018 at 8:55 am in reply to: grant of NOC for passport for Govt employee facing disciplinary proceedings #4463Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateThe Government of India has recently (last month) issued new guidelines on the issue of giving vigilance clearance for obtaining passport, including when a disciplinary proceeding is pending. These guidelines have been issued by O.M. F. No. 11012/7/2017-Estt.A-III dated 28th March 2018, and can be seen online here. As per these guidelines, vigilance clearance for the passport issuance can be withheld only under the following circumstances:
(i) The officer is under suspension;
(ii) A charge sheet has been issued against the officer in a disciplinary proceeding and the proceeding is pending.
(iii) Charge sheet has been filed in a Court by the investigating Agency in a criminal case and the case is pending.
(iv) Sanction for investigation or prosecution has been granted by the Competent Authority in a case under the PC Act or any other criminal matter.
(v) An FIR has been filed or a case has been registered by any Government entity against the officer, after a preliminary fact finding inquiry.
(vi) The officer is involved in a trap/ raid case on charges of corruption and investigation is pending.
Likewise, in 2015, new guidelines were issued by the Ministry of External Affairs vide O.M. No. VI/401/01/05/2014 dated 26th May 2015 (see online here) as per which a government servant can use the new feature of giving a prior intimation to the controlling authority before filing a passport application, in which case NOC of employer may not be necessary; however, if the controlling authority / employer has any objection that may be considered by the passport authority while considering the passport application. Further, police verification may still be needed.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 13, 2018 at 12:11 am in reply to: Review petition in High Court after rejection of SLP by Supreme Court #4460Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateI have discussed this question in my article: Review petition in High Court after dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court by non-speaking order.
As I have mentioned in the above article, if the Supreme Court has dismissed SLP, in limine, at the initial stage itself, i.e., without granting the leave to appeal, by a non-speaking order, against an order of the High Court, then it does not preclude filing of a review petition before the High Court against its earlier order, if such review petition is otherwise admissible.
But, if the SLP was rejected by a speaking order after hearing the petition in detail or after granting leave (which converts it into a regular Appeal), then a review petition would not be admissible in the High Court against its earlier order.
So, you have to check the factual position in your case.
I cannot make a comment as to whether or not such review petition would be accepted by the high court and as to how time would be taken for the first hearing. This would depend on the detailed facts of the case, which I am not aware of, and on this Forum, we do not go into detailed facts of a case. Please consult a local lawyer for guidance on facts of 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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateWhat has to be seen is who has longer service at a station. For example, let us suppose that the wife is at Delhi for 5 years and the husband is at Lucknow for 3 years. Then, here, the wife has a longer service at her station. So, she can make an application for her transfer to Lucknow (i.e., at her husband’s station) so that they can be posted at the same station. However, if her request cannot be acceded to on the basis of non-availability of vacant post, then the husband (who is the spouse with lesser service at his station) may apply to the appropriate cadre authority for his transfer to Delhi, which is the place of posting of his wife.
I hope it is clear. You may see my reply on a similar question (Husband and wife posted at different stations both being government servants) which discusses the provisions of the relevant Office Memorandum of the DOPT on the issue of posting husband wife at the same station to the extent possible.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 12, 2018 at 11:47 pm in reply to: Selection of Member/Chairperson in Child Welfare Committee as per Juvenile Justice Act 2015 #4456Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateThe relevant extracts from Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, relating to qualifications required for being the chairperson / members of the Child Welfare Committee of a district are as under:
“(2) The Committee shall consist of a Chairperson, and four other members as the State Government may think fit to appoint, of whom at least one shall be a woman and another, an expert on the matters concerning children.
(4) No person shall be appointed as a member of the Committee unless such person has been actively involved in health, education or welfare activities pertaining to children for at least seven years or is a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or psychiatry or law or social work or sociology or human development.
(5) No person shall be appointed as a member unless he possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed.”
Please remember that sub-section (5) of Section 27, as noted above, permits such other qualifications as may be prescribed under the Rules made by the Central Government under Section 110(2)(xiv) of the said Act. So, please check such Rules also, if any.
On the basis of the above qualifications, if you believe that the members / chairperson who have been appointed to the Child Welfare Committee do not fulfil these requirements, then you can challenge the constitution of the committee by filing a writ petition in the High 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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateI have already replied to your similar question at: Quashing of Crpc 151,107,116.
Please do not repeat the question. Contact some local lawyer to get guidance on the detailed facts of your case and the procedure that would be applicable in the facts of your case. Here is Section 123 Cr.P.C. for your information (you can see other sections of Cr.P.C. online):
“123. Power to release persons imprisoned for failing to give security.— (1) Whenever the District Magistrate in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case is of opinion that any person imprisoned for failing to give security under this Chapter may be released without hazard to the community or to any other person, he may order such person to be discharged.
(2) Whenever any person has been imprisoned for failing to give security under this Chapter, the High Court or Court of Session, or, where the order was made by any other Court, the District Magistrate, in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case, may make an order reducing the amount of the security or the number of sureties or the time for which security has been required.
(3) An order under sub-section (1) may direct the discharge of such person either without conditions or upon any conditions which such person accepts:
Provided that any condition imposed shall cease to be operative when the period for which such person was ordered to give security has expired.
(4) The State Government may prescribe the conditions upon which a conditional discharge may be made.
(5) If any condition upon which any person has been discharged is, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case by whom the order of discharge was made or of his successor, not fulfilled, he may cancel the same.
(6) When a conditional order of discharge has been cancelled under sub-section (5), such person may be arrested by any police officer without warrant, and shall thereupon be produced before the District Magistrate, in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case.
(7) Unless such person gives security in accordance with the terms of the original order for the unexpired portion of the terms for which he was in the first instance committed or ordered to be detained (such portion being deemed to be a period equal to the period between the date of the breach of the conditions of discharge and the date on which, except for such conditional discharge, he would have been entitled to release), the District Magistrate, in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case may remand such person to prison to undergo such unexpired portion.
(8) A person remanded to prison under sub-section (7) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 122, be released at any time on giving security in accordance with the terms of the original order for the unexpired portion aforesaid to the Court or Magistrate by whom such order was made, or to its or his successor.
(9) The High Court or Court of Session may at any time, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel any bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour executed under this Chapter by any order made by it, and the District Magistrate, in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case may make such cancellation where such bond was executed under his order or under the order of any Court in his district.
(10) Any surety for the peaceable conduct or good behaviour of another person ordered to execute a bond under this Chapter may at any time apply to the Court making such order to cancel the bond and on such application being made, the Court shall issue a summons or warrant, as it thinks fit, requiring the person for whom such surety is bound to appear or to be brought before it.”
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
April 12, 2018 at 1:04 pm in reply to: Consent/compromise order by collusion, pressure, coercion in CrPC 125 #4449Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocateIt may perhaps be better to approach the High Court for an appeal or revision under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, depending on exact nature of the order. But, if it the order being challenged is an interlocutory order, then you can try under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
Dr. Ashok DhamijaAdvocatePlease read the guidelines for asking questions on this Forum, and in particular, the following:
“(5) What is replied here is “legal” questions or questions of “law”, and NOT detailed questions of “facts”. So, questions with detailed facts may not be answered, for which, in fact, it is in your own interests to contact some local lawyer who can study all relevant facts with the help of your detailed case papers (which is beyond the scope of this public forum). …”
It is not possible for us to read detailed facts of a case, read their drafting, petitions, etc. We cannot reply to such detailed facts and we have already made it clear in our guidelines for asking questions.
Please consult your lawyer, and if needed, some other local lawyer for the issues raised by you.
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. List of his YouTube Videos.
-
AuthorPosts
