[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Yes, you’ll be entitled to Income Tax relief in terms of Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by recalculating tax for all the relevant years, i.e., the year in which arrears are received and the years to which the arrears pertain.

The main part of Section 89 of the Income Tax Act is reproduced below for your information:

“89. Relief when salary, etc., is paid in arrears or in advance.—Where an assessee is in receipt of a sum in the nature of salary, being paid in arrears or in advance or is in receipt, in any one financial year, of salary for more than twelve months or a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of Section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, or is in receipt of a sum in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation to clause (ii–a) of Section 57, being paid in arrears, due to which his total income is assessed at a rate higher than that at which it would otherwise have been assessed, the Assessing Officer shall, on an application made to him in this behalf, grant such relief as may be prescribed: …”.

Therefore, tax relief can be provided on arrears of salary or arrears of pension or of family pension, which are received in a bunch. You can claim this tax relief in your IT Return.

However, it is mandatory for you to file Form 10E if you want to claim relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. This Form 10E can be downloaded from the Income Tax Department website. The IT Department website also has a fillable form. Search on Google (or locate it on this webpage).

The arrears of the salary would be apportioned to respective years for which these arrears were paid and the tax for those years would be recomputed. Relief would be granted to you in tax, if this recalculation of tax for the previous years is beneficial to 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.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

While I’ll not comment on the facts of your case, I’ll cover the legal issue involved in my answer.

Section 27 of the Contract Act lays down that: “Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.”

Therefore, a contract or agreement in restraint of trade is void and is not valid under law.

However, there is one exception to this rule, provided under Section 27 itself. This exception is as under:

“Exception 1.—Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which goodwill is sold

Exception 1.—Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which goodwill is sold.—One who sells the good-will of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein:

Provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.”

Thus, subject to the conditions mentioned in the above Exception, there can be a restraint on the seller of a goodwill from carrying on a similar business. This is obviously with a view to protect the interests of the buyer of the goodwill. However, as you would have noticed, there are some conditions on this restraint also.

One of the important conditions or limitations on such restraint on the seller of goodwill is that such restraint of not carrying similar business is applicable to him only “so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein”.

Thus, if the buyer of goodwill (or any person deriving from his rights to the said goodwill) stops doing the business (or the like business; in your case, the business of book publication or book marketing), then there is no restraint on the seller of goodwill. This means that in such a situation, the seller of goodwill would be freed from the restraint of not carrying similar business.

This is the general legal position applicable in India. Now, it is for you to decide whether it fits into your facts, i.e., whether the buyer of your goodwill has actually stopped doing the said business, etc., as it is not possible for me to comment accurately on the detailed facts, without having studied the detailed facts 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 Dhamija]

The offence of cheque bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a bailable offence, where getting bail is a sort of right.

As per the provisions of Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with bailable offences, the court has the power to release the accused in such cases even on his personal bond without sureties. It is the discretion of the court whether to dispense with sureties.

Further, while generally local sureties are insisted, the court has power to accept outside sureties. Moreover, as mentioned above, even personal bond without sureties can be accepted by the court. Further, cash security can also be accepted in appropriate cases by the court in lieu of the sureties.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

Handwriting expert’s opinion is generally not considered to be a substantive evidence. It is generally required to be corroborated by other evidence. In the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held as under:

“…expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the probabilities are against the expert’s opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly in consistent with it.”

“…the mere opinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the attesting witnesses in a case like this where there are no suspicious circumstances.”

The expert’s evidence is not binding on the court. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury, and that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. The Court further observed that:

“An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.” [Also see: Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221.]

     

---

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 Dhamija]

Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) specifically permits compromise of a suit pending in the court. As per this, after a suit has been instituted in the court by plaintiff against the defendant, it is open to both the parties to compromise, adjust or settle it by an agreement or a compromise. In the case of K.K. Chari v. R.M. Seshadri, (1973) 1 SCC 761 : AIR 1973 SC 1311, the Supreme Court has held that under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all matters to be decided in a suit can be settled by means of a compromise.

Rule 3 of Order 23 of the CPC is reproduced below:

“3. Compromise of suit.— Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.

Explanation.— An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.”

Thus, following conditions must be satisfied before the court passes a consent decree in the suit on the basis of a compromise between the parties:

• There must be an agreement or compromise between the parties.
• It must be in writing and must be signed by the parties to the suit.
• Such agreement or compromise must be lawful.
• It must be recorded by the court.
• A compromise or consent decree must have been passed by the court.

Thus, if above conditions are satisfied, the suit will stand disposed of, with the passing of a consent decree.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

The anti-corruption unit of a State can lay a trap within its own state, and such trap can be against any public servant, i.e., such public servant can be a Government employee of the same State Government, or an employee under some other State Government, or an employee under the Central Government. The jurisdiction of an anti-corruption bureau or unit is confined to within the boundaries of the same state. So, the anti corruption unit of a state cannot go out of its way to lay a trap outside that state against an employee of that state.

However, there can be one exception. If an FIR for demand of bribe is already registered by the anti corruption unit of a state within the same state against an employee of that state, then in continuation of investigation of that FIR it can conduct investigation in any other state in India, and laying of trap is also a part of the investigation (even in another state) if the FIR was already registered within the state of the anti-corruption state. Therefore, laying of a trap outside the state may be possible only as a continuation of an existing FIR, but not as a fresh case. For this purpose, Section 48 of the Cr.P.C. may be seen which lays down that: “A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India”. It is well established that investigation of a case can be done by police anywhere in India, even beyond the original state. However, please note that such outside state investigation is generally done in consultation with the local police of that state, though this is not mandatory under law.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

The device on which the call recordings were originally recorded, becomes the primary evidence, which can be directly produced (in original) in court and it become admissible evidence.

But, you have said that call recordings were stored directly (and, perhaps, only) on the server in the cloud. In such a situation, that server in the cloud would become the primary evidence. Now, can you produce this original server in court? Obviously not. So, you have to give secondary evidence of the call recordings in court, by following the procedure / requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. If you follow these requirements, then such evidence may be admissible in court. But, admissibility of evidence is one thing, whether such evidence is genuine (and trustworthy) is entirely a different issue on which the court will decide taking into account various aspects.

Please read Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. There are various requirements under that provision which have to be satisfied. Certain information in respect of the server in the cloud where the information was stored, may also be needed. Certificate of the person mentioned in Section 65-B(4) is required to be given. Consult some local expert or lawyer if you cannot understand the requirements of Section 65-B yourself.

Secondary evidence can be in the form of copies on an electronic / magnetic / optical media as mentioned in the above legal provision. Transcript is only for the purpose of comparison and may have to be given if required by the court, though the above section does not require it.

You can request the judge to ask the complainant to provide her voice sample. But, as far as I understand, she may have the right to refuse.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

Usually, a review petition is entertained on very limited grounds, such as error on the face of the records. Usually, review petition would not be entertained or heard on merits. However, you can challenge the decision in the higher court (in this case, in the Supreme Court).

When you challenge the promotion granted to someone else (by getting it declared as void), usually it is expected that you would make him a party. Such other party has an equal right to be heard when an adverse action (such as, of declaring his promotion as void) is to be taken against him. Therefore, it is generally expected that you would make such other person a party in the petition filed by you.

If the review petition was rejected by the high court, you have the option of challenging it in Supreme Court.

It is not possible to reply to the last part of your question in the absence of knowledge of detailed facts of your case, which in any case is beyond the scope of this public forum (please see our forum guidelines).

     

---

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 Dhamija]

This is the problem with police. They generally avoid registering FIRs wherever possible. And, then, the citizens suffer.

It would have been advisable for you to get at least a General Diary (if not the FIR) made in the police station at the time when you first went there with your complaint of your vehicle having been stolen. That could have conclusively proved that you had filed the complaint immediately on time.

Secondly, if you have any acknowledgement for your initial complaint lodged with police, that may also be of help. Any other evidence of lodging the complaint on time may also be of help (such as presence of some friend, etc., when the complaint was first lodged). Your mobile phone location, showing your presence in the police station at the time when you first went to police station can also perhaps be of help, You may try to get mobile phone location from the telecom operator.

Thirdly, you have to check with the clauses of the Insurance policy. Can they reject the insurance claim merely because there is a delay in registration of the FIR? Is there a clause in the insurance police to that effect? In any case, the whole world knows that police officers generally avoid registering the FIRs. So, the insurance company should also know this.

Moreover, vehicle theft is not like a mobile phone theft. There is a difference between some item getting lost and getting stolen (theft). Insurance claim is generally given in the case of theft and not in the case of loss. While it is easy to lose one’s mobile (one may keep it somewhere, in a shop, college, or elsewhere, and then forget it), but it is generally not possible to lose one’s vehicle. A vehicle is generally stolen (i.e., theft) and not simply lost. The insurance people should know the difference. You can point it out.

You’ll have to fight with the insurance company as well with the police officers concerned, to get the matter sorted out. Approach their senior officers, if needed.

If needed, you may have to escalate the issue with the Ombudsman of the Insurance company. Even filing a complaint in the consumer court may also have to be considered, if nothing else works out.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

I have already replied to the issue. Even in an attempt to murder case, after conviction, the Sessions Court does not have power to grant bail. If bail is rejected by high court, then approach the Supreme Court.

Why don’t you check the basis facts from your lawyer as to what is “counter”? I am sure you would have paid him professional fee.

From the facts stated by you, it appears that “counter” may be referring to the “counter-affidavit” or reply to be filed by the opposite party, i.e., the prosecution. This means the court might have given 28 days time to file counter-affidavit or reply. If that is the situation, then that may imply that your bail application is yet to be decided, which in turn implies that your question (bail rejected in high court) itself is wrong.

So, please check it from your lawyer – what are the correct facts. Half-facts waste time of everybody, including ours. Please do not ask a question unless you know the basic facts.     

---

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 Dhamija]

There appears to be some problem with your question. On the one hand, you say that there is a conviction in a case under Section 302 IPC (murder), attempt to murder (which should be Section 307 IPC) and Arms Act. On the other, you say that the Sessions Court has rejected the bail. Please note that if there is a conviction in a murder case, the Sessions Court has no power to grant bail after there a conviction in such case. It is only the appellate court, i.e., the High Court, which can consider the issue of grant of bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. Of course, thereafter, you can also approach the Supreme Court.

Also note that in case of conviction in a serious case like murder, and that too with firearms (as you have said there is conviction under Arms Act also), generally the chance of getting bail (after conviction) would be very limited.

If the bail application has been rejected by the High Court, you can challenge that decision in the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

     

---

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 Dhamija]

Firstly, there appear to be contradictory interpretations of the DRT order – one by you and the other by the FI. Please consult your lawyer or some other local expert, by showing him the DRT order, to clearly understand the DRT order, as to which interpretation is correct.

If your interpretation of the DRT order is correct, then the FI is committing a contempt of the DRT by not complying with it. You can file the necessary contempt proceedings for non-compliance with the DRT order. Or, otherwise, file an application before the DRT seeking direction to FI to comply with its direction of returning your property 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. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Please read my answer carefully. This question is already replied. I have already pointed out that there is no requirement for the Government servant to submit a written application for getting the GPF amount. It is the duty of the Accounts Officer to initiate process of payment of GPF amount when it becomes due. So, if it became due 10 years back, the Accounts Officer was duty bound to process it. If it has not been paid for 10 years, then the interest may have to be paid.     

---

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 Dhamija]

As per Rule 11(4) of General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also. While interest for the first six months beyond retirement can be allowed by the PAO in the normal course, approval of Head of the accounts office is required for payment of interest beyond six months and that of Controller of Account/Financial Adviser beyond a period of one year.

[Note: See the Government of India’s Guidelines in this regard.]

The same rule should apply in respect of termination of service also.

It may also be noted that the requirement of submitting a written application by the retiring Govt. servant for GPF final payment has been dispensed with vide Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare Notification No. 20(12)/94-P&PW (E) dated 15.11.1996 and notified under S.O NO.3228 dated 23.11.1996.

Further, please note that Rule 34 of General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules clearly provides that when the amount standing at the credit of a subscriber in the General Provident Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment.

In case of delay in payment of the GPF amount, if any additional interest is required to be paid to the subscriber, the Government orders require action to be taken against Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of General Provident Fund.

In view of these provisions, you can request for payment of interest till the date of final settlement of your GPF amount.

     

---

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 Dhamija]

Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is resorted to when the case is to be transferred from a court in a State to a court in some other State. If the court to which the case is to be transferred with the same district or within the same state, then the transfer can be made by the District or the High Court, respectively, as the case may be, under the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC.

Please note that sub-section (5) of Section 24 of CPC specifically mentions that such case can be transferred even from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it:

“(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.”

So, this may perhaps be helpful in your case.

Secondly, also note that sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that the court to which the case is transferred, may “…subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn”.

This may again be helpful to you.

Powers under Section 25 of the CPC are similar in nature to those under Section 24 thereof.

You can try using these provisions, as per the facts of your case, if they can be helpful to you in your factual situation.

     

---

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.

[Author]

Posts