RANJIT GIRI

The  Delhi High Court  voiced its concerns on the police not following guidelines, which have been made clear by the  Supreme Court , while making  casual arrests  . In a case that came up in court, a man and his mother were looking for legal protection from the arrest which had been made out for them. The mother son duo have been accused of dowry harassment in a complaint registered by the wife and so a case had been registered under  Section 498A of the IPC (dowry harassment, cruelty). It was brought to notice that the first attempt should be to save a marriage and the probe agencies should be careful while arresting the family members. Kamini Lau, the Additional Sessions Judge , made clear that the police need to follow the checklist/ guidelines which have been laid down by the Supreme Court against casual arrests in cases under  Section 498A of the IPC  as also under cases where punishment is for seven years or less. The apex court had also warned and directed the police,

SC says Driver holding Light Motor Vehicle License can Drive Transport Vehicle without any Endorsement Case name: Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited In this landmark case, one of the seminal issue was  whether a driver who is having a license to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ and is driving ‘transport vehicle’ of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle? With reference to the aforesaid issue there has been a divergence of opinion and conflict in the plethora of decisions of this Court. However, the issue has now been settled by Three-Judge Bench by holding that there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle. It was further stated in the case that  if a driver is holding license to drive a light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle also of such class without any endorsement to that effect.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – SC issues guidelines on Assessment of Compensation Case name: National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi In a landmark judgment passed by Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in October, 2017, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines for computation of compensation under the  Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 . In the case, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a reference made to the Bench in the case of  National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors. [1] ,  in view of divergence of opinion of the Supreme Court in the cases of  Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan  and  Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others   with reference to Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) and the methodology of computation of future prospects. Some of the factors on which the Bench expounded and issued guidelines were  addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand, deduction

टेक्स  स्लैब- 250000/-  =             Nil 251000-500000  =   5% 500001-1000000= 20% 10लाख से अधिक    =30% *वेतन एवम् भत्ते जो आयकर के अंतर्गत है:- *मूल वेतन *महंगाई भत्ता *विशेष भत्ता *बोनस *एरियर *फ़ूड/मेस भत्ता *हार्ड ड्यूटी *आंशिक टेक्सबल भत्ते* *चिकित्सा पुनर्भरण 15000/- वार्षिक तक *मकान किराया भत्ता(HRA) *ट्रांसपोर्ट भत्ता 1600 महीना तक *LTA *टेक्स फ्री भत्ते* *Newspaper/Journal All. Up to 12000/-par year टेलीफोन/मोबाइल भत्ता ऑफिस काम आने वाला भोजन कूपन 2200 हर माह इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न ============== देश के हर टैक्सपेयर की यह ड्यूटी है कि वह इनकम टैक्स विभाग को हर फाइनैंशल इयर के अंत में उस फाइनैंशल इयर में हुई आमदनी का ब्योरा दे। यह ब्योरा उसे विभाग द्वारा तय फॉर्म में भरकर देना होता है। इस *फॉर्म के जरिये दी गई पूरी जानकारी इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न* कहलाती है। फाइनैंशल इयर ============ 1 अप्रैल से 31 मार्च तक के समय को फाइनैंशल इयर कहा जाता है। उदाहरण के तौर पर 1 अप्रैल 2017 से 31 मार्च 2018 तक के समय को फाइनैंशल इयर 2017-18 कहा जाएगा। असेसमेंट इयर =≠=========≠

On Our Justice System     Sixty-seven per cent of those in jails are awaiting trial, according to the Law Commission. Rajendra Singh Hajeri Lost time: Sixty-seven per cent of those in jails are awaiting trial, according to the Law Commission. Rajendra Singh Hajeri (The Hindu) Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI 25 MAY 2017 00:00 IST UPDATED: 25 MAY 2017 04:31 IST    Law Commission advocates relaxation of bail provisions for under trial prisoners It has become the norm for the the rich and powerful to get bail with ease while the commoner and the poor languish in jail, the Law Commission of India said in its latest report. “It has become a norm than an aberration in most jurisdictions including India that the powerful, rich and influential obtain bail promptly and with ease, whereas the masses/the common/the poor languish in jails,” the 268th report of the Law Commission led by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan, observed. The Commission recommended to the government

January 17, 2018 One of the most touted and contentious issues of our times i.e. Aadhaar case was taken up by 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today. With all eyes on the case, the opening statement by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan have been remarkable and compels us to ponder upon biometric technology deployed for Aadhaar database and vulnerability to a citizen’s right to privacy. Some of the submissions made by the Senior Advocate on behalf of Petitioners are enumerated below: If Aadhaar Act and programme are allowed to operate unimpeded then it will hollow out the Constitution. The Programme seeks to tether every resident of India to an electronic leash The Programme is designed to track transaction across life of all citizen The Aadhaar database would enable the State to profile citizens and profiling enables State to stifle, dissent and influence political decision making Aadhaar alters the relationship between State and citizen. It diminishes the s

January 17, 2018 In a recent case, two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court broadly discussed the principles of “Under-Insurance” and “Averaging out” under the Law of Insurance. In the case I.C. Sharma v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant had approached the Apex Court against the National Commission’s order. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had purchased a Householder Insurance Policy from the Respondent Insurance Company. The Policy in question was renewed till 22.12.2005. As per the policy the coverage of articles/items in the Appellant’s house was “as per list”. Pursuant to expiry of Policy on 22.12.2005 a fresh policy was registered as per new scheme on 19.01.2006 and the same was renewed form time to time. Meanwhile, the appellant went to the United Kingdom and burglary took place inside the Appellant’s house. In the alleged burglary, the appellant’s household items were stolen for which the appellant claimed from the Respondent. However, the Ap

anuary 18, 2018 Case name: Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Date of Judgment: January 08, 2018 In this case, two intrinsic issues were deliberated elaborately by the Gujarat High Court. One relating to proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the other related to incidence of extra marital affairs eventually leading to divorce. Also read Who can claim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005? Brief Facts: In the case, the husband and wife were married since 1993 and had two children out of their wedlock. As per the facts, the marital discord between husband and wife commenced pursuant to alleged growing intimacy between husband and tuition teacher of the children. In the case, wife initiated criminal proceedings against the husband as well as the mother­in­law under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, whereby the wife submitted that the retention of stridhan by husband or his family is a form of a domestic v

January 18, 2018 The controversial Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s flick “Padmavati” again was taken up by the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra today. In a latest development, the Supreme Court Bench while respecting the freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right has stayed ban imposed on screening of the impugned movie by the States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. The Chief Justice led Three-Judge Bench has granted an interim injunction in favour of the Petitioners, Viacom Productions primarily in view of fundamental right as enshrined under Article 19(1) of Constitution of India. While pronouncing the order, Chief Justice stated that we are concerned that a film is being banned from being exhibited…expression of a creative content….my constitutional conscience is shocked. The Apex Court while upholding the freedom of expression of filmmakers in the case made reference to the case Vinod Kumar Kanojia v. Union of India, wherei

January 17, 2018 In a recent case, two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court broadly discussed the principles of “Under-Insurance” and “Averaging out” under the Law of Insurance. In the case I.C. Sharma v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant had approached the Apex Court against the National Commission’s order. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had purchased a Householder Insurance Policy from the Respondent Insurance Company. The Policy in question was renewed till 22.12.2005. As per the policy the coverage of articles/items in the Appellant’s house was “as per list”. Pursuant to expiry of Policy on 22.12.2005 a fresh policy was registered as per new scheme on 19.01.2006 and the same was renewed form time to time. Meanwhile, the appellant went to the United Kingdom and burglary took place inside the Appellant’s house. In the alleged burglary, the appellant’s household items were stolen for which the appellant claimed from the Respondent. However, the Ap

Whereas by a resolution passed in the Chief Justices’ Conference held at New Delhi on September 18-19, 1992, it was resolved that it is desirable to restate the pre-existing and universally accepted norms, guidelines and conventions reflecting the high values of judicial life to be followed by Judges during their tenure of office: And Whereas the Chief Justice of India was further requested by that Resolution to constitute a Committee for preparing the draft restatement to be circulated to the Chief Justice of the High Courts for discussion with their colleagues, which was duly circulated on 21.11.1993; And Whereas suggestions have been received from the Chief Justice for the High Commission after discussion with their colleagues; And whereas the Committee has been reconstituted by the Chef Justice of India on April 7, 1997, to finalise the |’Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ After taking note of the draft Restatement of Values of Judicial Life prepared by a commit

The Supreme Court said recently that a daughter cannot fight for her right to inherit ancestral property if the death of her father occurred before the amendment of Hindu law which came into force in 2005. In the year 2005, the Supreme Court passed an amendment of the Hindu succession Act of 1956. The amendment granted daughters the right to inherit ancestral property along with their male relativ es. Now, the Supreme Court had added a ‘small’ clause to it. According to the clause, the daughter can hold the right to property only in case the father had died after the amendment of the came into force in 2005. In other words, the daughter can be the co-sharer of her father’s property with her male siblings, only in case the father is alive till 9th September 2005. In addition to this the Supreme Court said that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have a retrospective effect. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh