[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

In general, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to the proceedings before tribunals and administrative authorities. The provisions of the above Act are meant to be applicable to proceedings before courts or judicial authorities; they are not meant to be applicable to proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities. However, by a specific provision contained in the law which creates such quasi-judicial authority, such as a tribunal or an executive authority, the provisions of the Limitation Act may be made applicable to proceedings before such bodies also. But, in the absence of any specific provision in the relevant statute, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be automatically applied to the proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities such as tribunals and administrative authorities.

In the case of Sakuru v. Tanaji, (1985) 3 SCC 590, the Supreme Court held that it is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court [in Town Municipal Council v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1969) 1 SCC 873 : (1970) 1 SCR 51; Nityananda M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1969) 2 SCC 199; and Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad, (1976) 1 SCC 361] that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply only to proceedings in “courts” and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than courts such as quasi-judicial tribunals or executive authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on courts under the Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure.

The same legal principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Shivam Coke Industries, (2011) 8 SCC 656.

     

---

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 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically lays down that “Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.”

This is the main operating provision of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is quite clear from this provision that the Limitation Act applies to the suits, appeals and applications. There is no mention of defence of the respondent in this provision.

In fact, in the case of Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, (2004) 5 SCC 272, the Supreme Court has held that although the period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 precludes a plaintiff bringing a suit which is barred by limitation, as far as any defence is concerned, there is no such limitation.

In view of this, the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act may not be applicable to the defence to be taken by the respondent.

However, under other provisions of law (such as, under the Civil Procedure Code and/or under its Orders/Rules), a time-limit may be prescribed for filing of the defence by the opposite party.

     

---

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]

Yes. Video recording is an electronic document, which can be proved either by producing the original or by its copy produced in accordance with procedure laid down in Section 65-B of the Evidence 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.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

You mean to say that there was no minimum period required for retaining the school on rent. So, you can take all these defences, as I have suggested in the main reply.     

---

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]

How the maintenance charge should be fixed for the members of the society depends on the bye-laws of each society itself. It has to be decided by the society itself. There can basically be three types of methods:

• Per Square Feet charge: In this method, each flat owner pays maintenance on the basis of per square feet. So, an owner having flat with larger area will pay more. In your case, there may be more charges for the high rise apartments and less charges for the low rise apartments. This method may not be acceptable to owners of larger apartments since there are many facilities which are used equally by all residents such as Lifts, Gardens, etc., irrespective of the flat size.
• Equal maintenance charge: In this method, each flat owner pays the same maintenance charge irrespective of the flat size. This method may be unfair to small flat owners if the sizes of the flats in the society vary drastically.
• Hybrid method: In this method, certain charges are to paid equally (for example, lift, garden or other common facilities which are equally enjoyed by everyone irrespective of the flat size) while certain other charges are paid on the basis of per square feet basis. This may be a better alternative since it is a middle path and perhaps more equitable.

There are various types of charges that may be collected from members of a housing society, such as, for example:

(i) Property Taxes, (ii) Water Charges, (iii) Common Electricity Charges, (iv) Contribution to Repairs and Maintenance Fund, (v) Expenses on repairs and maintenance of the lifts of the Society, including charges for running the lift. (vi) Contribution to the Sinking Fund, (vii) Service Charges, (Viii) Car Parking Charges, (ix) Interest on the defaulted charges, (x) Repayment of the installment of the loan and interest, (xi) Non-occupancy Charges, (xii) Insurance Charges, (xiii) Lease rent, (xiv) Nonagricultural tax. (xv) Education and Training Fund (xvi) Election Fund (xvii) charges for maintenance of common areas, such as gardens and other common facilities (xviii) Any Other Charges.

Some of these charges may more appropriately be collected on the basis of the size of the apartment of each member, while some other charges may perhaps be equal for all members.

All said and done, as I mentioned above, it is ultimately up to the society to decide (in a democratic manner) how and on what basis the maintenance charges are to be collected: whether equal for all flats, or on per square feet basis, or on hybrid basis. Generally speaking, the laws do not lay down a hard and fast rule. You have to decide on your own. If your society members are not agreeable on a common formula, the better course would be to have a hybrid method, i.e., have a breakdown of various expenses / charges and some of the charges which are enjoyed equally by all should be equal, while certain other charges may be per square feet basis, and then a total may be arrived at for each flat on the basis of such formula.

     

---

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]

One important requirement for making out a case of cheque bounce under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the cheque should have been issued for the discharge of any debt or liability, either in full or in part. so the question that has to be seen in your case is whether that cheque has been issued by you for the discharge of any debt or liability on account of your having taken the school on rent.

In this regard, please note that even an oral agreement is also a valid agreement under the provisions of the Contract Act. Of course, it is more difficult to prove an oral agreement.

So, it has to be seen whether there was an agreement for a minimum  period for which you could not vacate the premises. If there was any such minimum period for which you could not vacate the premises then that much would be your liability under the agreement. If there was no such minimum requirement, then you don’t have any liability to the landowner.

Therefore, depending upon for how many minimum months the premises were required to be retained by you as per the agreement, the cheques for those many months would be representing the liability. Accordingly, dishonour of the cheques for those many months may perhaps attract offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if other conditions under that section are satisfied.

As mentioned above, if there was no minimum requirement for not vacating the premises, then there would not be any cheque bounce case in respect of any of the cheques.

For your convenience, I am reproducing an approximate Hindi translation of the reply:

नेगोशिएबल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एक्ट की धारा 138 के तहत चेक बाउंस का मामला बनाने के लिए एक महत्वपूर्ण आवश्यकता यह है कि चेक किसी भी ऋण या देनदारी के निर्वहन के लिए जारी किया गया हो, चाहे वह पूर्ण या आंशिक रूप में हो। इसलिए आपके मामले में यह सवाल है कि क्या आपके द्वारा  किराए पर स्कूल लेने के कारण किसी भी ऋण या देनदारी के निर्गम के लिए यह चेक जारी किया गया है या नहीं।

इस संबंध में, कृपया ध्यान दें कि कॉन्ट्रैक्ट एक्ट  के प्रावधानों के तहत मौखिक करार भी एक मान्य समझौता है। बेशक, मौखिक समझौते को साबित करना अधिक कठिन है।

इसलिए, यह देखना होगा कि क्या न्यूनतम अवधि के लिए कोई समझौता किया गया था, जिसके लिए आप परिसर खाली नहीं कर सकते । अगर ऐसी कोई न्यूनतम अवधि थी जिसके लिए आप परिसर खाली नहीं कर सकते तो समझौते के तहत आपकी ज़िम्मेदारी उस अवधि के लिए होगी। यदि ऐसी कोई न्यूनतम आवश्यकता नहीं थी, तो आप पर लैंड-ओनर के लिए कोई देयता नहीं है।

इसलिए, समझौते के अनुसार आपके द्वारा कितने न्यूनतम महीने परिसर को किराये पर रखने के लिए आवश्यक थे, उन सभी महीनों के लिए चेक देयता का प्रतिनिधित्व करेंगे। तदनुसार, उन महीनों के चेक के dishonour से शायद नेगोशिएबल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एक्ट  की धारा 138 के तहत अपराध बनता हो, अगर उस धारा के तहत अन्य शर्तों को संतुष्ट किया गया हो।

जैसा कि ऊपर उल्लेख किया गया है, अगर परिसर को खाली न करने के लिए न्यूनतम आवश्यकता नहीं थी, तो किसी चेक के संबंध में कोई चेक बाउंस केस नहीं होगा।

     

---

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, you can make a complaint to Facebook itself about your photograph being used by someone else. If Facebook authorities are satisfied about the genuineness of your complaint, they may remove such photograph or the profile itself.

Secondly, in some situations, personation is an offence if certain conditions are satisfied.

For example, Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act prescribes punishment for identity theft by a person who fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person.

Section 66-D of the said Act lays down for punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.

Even under the Indian Penal Code, cheating by personation is defined under Section 416 of IPC, which lays down that a person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. This offence is punishable under Section 419 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. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Recently, in 2016, the Parliament has passed a new Act called the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This Act now deals with the resolution of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy of corporates and even of firms and individuals.

Under this new Act, “creditor” has been defined as any person to whom a debt is owed and includes a financial creditor, an operational creditor, a secured creditor, an unsecured creditor and a decree-holder.

Likewise, “debt” has been defined as a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt.

In respect of a corporate debtor where the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees, corporate insolvency resolution process can be initiated, inter alia, by a financial creditor or an operational creditor. These proceedings can be initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which is the Adjudicating Authority for corporate debtors.

Section 33 of this Act lays down that where within the stipulated period, the corporate insolvency resolution process does not receive a resolution plan or where such plan is rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, in this case), liquidation proceedings can be initiated by the order of such Authority.

Therefore, it should be possible for the creditors to initiate the above process against a company (which may culminate in liquidation proceedings or in resolution of the issue) which has failed to meet its liabilities towards its debts, subject to the conditions / procedure mentioned in the above 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.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

You have said that all allegations made by your wife in the complaint are false. So, you will have to give evidence in the court to show how those allegations are false. By proving her allegations to be untrue and showing the correct facts to the court can help you in the 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 Dhamija]

It is not clear under which Government or PSU you are working. Recently, the Supreme Court had held that Suspension order not to extend beyond 3 months if charge-sheet is not served. The Central Government had also issued similar orders directing that suspension shall not extend beyond 3 months if charge sheet is not served. However, it is not clear whether you are working with Central Government.

If the rules of your organisation require renewal of suspension after first 90 days of suspension after reviewing it, and if your suspension has not been reviewed after 90 days’ period, then you should challenge it in the appropriate court; it may be Delhi high court or may be the tribunal, depending on where you work. In such situation, you need not even wait for 180 days.

     

---

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]

Whether the high court will grant bail in these offences (i.e., Sections 420, 409, 467, 471 IPC) will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances.

But, generally speaking, though all these offences are non-bailable, in appropriate circumstances, bail can be granted in these offences depending on facts of the case concerned. Sometimes, the bail may be refused at the initial stage, specially during investigation; but subsequently, bail may be granted if there is no fear of witnesses being influenced, or evidence being concealed or destroyed or the accused absconding, etc.

So, you may try in the high court for getting bail in consultation with your lawyer who would be aware of the full 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 Dhamija]

If such unmarried man and woman are adults and not minor, and if they voluntarily stay in a single room in a hotel or elsewhere in any other house, etc., then generally there is no legal bar on this and no offence is committed.

This is on the presumption that both man and woman are willing partners and not involved in any prostitution racket or brothel [in the latter case, provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, may be attracted, if applicable in the fact situation].

In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 : AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of “adultery”), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or “live with anyone she likes”.

Likewise, in the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 : AIR 2010 SC 3196, the Supreme Court held that while it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting, with the exception of “adultery” as defined under Section 497 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. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

If some TDS amount was deducted but not deposited on time, then you may deposit this TDS amount now along with the applicable interest and penalty, if any.

Further, you may revise the TDS Return for the relevant quarter after paying this TDS, if such Return had already been filed.

     

---

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 is no restriction imposed in the Companies Act, 2013, on a private limited company to sell its shares at a premium over the face value or the nominal value of the shares. While Section 53 (read with Section 54) puts some restrictions on sale of shares of a company at discount, there is no restriction on the sale of shares at premium.

Please note that wherever shares are issued at a premium by a company, Section 52 of the Companies Act would apply for dealing with the aggregate amount of premium received.

     

---

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]

If your annual turnover is up to ₹ 20 lakh, there is complete exemption from payment of GST. If the annual turnover is more than ₹ 20 lakh but less than ₹ 75 lakh, then you may avail the benefit of the GST composition scheme by opting for the same.

Since your annual turnover is ₹ 55 lakh, you are eligible to opt for the GST composition scheme.

     

---

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