Wednesday, September 30, 2015
HOW DARE AND DEAR THE POLICE IS ?
Chittur Church in Ernakulam district is the venue.Cheranellur Police of the same district is in the Key role.
The three youth were travelling in a single bike after the church ceremonies. Obviously, riding with three persons in a bike is an offence and the driver of the vehicle is liable to be punished for taking more capacity than the permitted number.
BUT how come the pillion riders liable for the same offence.
Perhaps due to the pressure for petty spree, the police found it as two bonus cases. When the youth then and there questioned it, how the petty case is charged all against them, the officer said, it is a new law and they all booked and taken to police station. Later released on bail.
The youth got summons from the Judicial Magistrate Court to answer the charges of offences under section 118(e) of Kerala Police Act, sections 132(1) r/w 179 and 188 of Motor Vehicles Act.
The section 118 (e) is for an offence causing danger to public.The section 188 is for abetment of offence. But for attracting abetment of offence in Motor Vehicles Act, offences under section 184,185 and 186 ought to have been charged. Admittedly, there is no such offences against the trio.
When the matter came in High Court of Kerala, as Criminal Misc. case, challenging the action of police, the Court opined, "it is not known how a prosecution is possible against the pillion riders for the offence of rash and negligent driving".?
The High Court in Crl MC No. 4492/2015 vide judgment dated 19.8.2015 quashed the charges against the pillion riders and also the charge of abetment against the rider. Crime No. 262/2015 of Cheranellur Police, CC 62/2015 of JFMC IX Ernakulam.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Can delay in filing petition to set aside divorce order condoned ? Is there any bar under Limitation Act ?
One of the party got married after getting a decree of divorce from the family court. The decree was an exparte one. He married again after waiting the statutory appeal period and in full compliance of section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act.
The other party filed a petition to set aside the decree before the family court, after a delay of 290 days. The petition to condone the delay was argued in detail, after evidence, it was dismissed for want of sufficient reason.
The decision was challenged in Mat Appeal before the High Court of Kerala.
The crucial question is whether the bar under section 29(3) of Limitation Act is applicable ?
As per the provision of section 29 of Limitation Act, delay cannot be condoned in a proceedings in matrimonial cases. Therefore, the challenge against the dismissal order of delay condonation cannot be allowed in strict sense. Because, the High Court cannot direct the Family Court to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the decree of divorce.
Otherwise, every remarriage will be in trouble, anticipating appeals even after long delay...
The other party filed a petition to set aside the decree before the family court, after a delay of 290 days. The petition to condone the delay was argued in detail, after evidence, it was dismissed for want of sufficient reason.
The decision was challenged in Mat Appeal before the High Court of Kerala.
The crucial question is whether the bar under section 29(3) of Limitation Act is applicable ?
As per the provision of section 29 of Limitation Act, delay cannot be condoned in a proceedings in matrimonial cases. Therefore, the challenge against the dismissal order of delay condonation cannot be allowed in strict sense. Because, the High Court cannot direct the Family Court to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the decree of divorce.
Otherwise, every remarriage will be in trouble, anticipating appeals even after long delay...
Friday, September 4, 2015
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Employment opportunities for minority students.. Password
ന്യൂനപക്ഷവിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്ക് സ്‌കൂള്‍വിദ്യാഭ്യാസത്തിനുശേഷം അനുയോജ്യമായ ഉന്നതപഠനാവസരങ്ങളും തൊഴിലും ഇനി എളുപ്പം കണ്ടെത്താം. ഇതിനായി 'പാസ്വേര്‍ഡ്' എന്നപേരില്‍ എല്ലാ ജില്ലകളിലും ന്യൂനപക്ഷക്ഷേമവകുപ്പ് സൗജന്യ ക്യാമ്പുകള്‍ സംഘടിപ്പിക്കും.
രണ്ടുദിവസത്തെ റസിഡന്‍ഷ്യല്‍ ക്യാമ്പില്‍ ഉന്നതവിദ്യാഭ്യാസരംഗത്തെയും കരിയര്‍രംഗത്തെയും വിദഗ്ധര്‍ ക്ലാസുകളെടുക്കും. പങ്കെടുക്കുന്ന വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്ക് താമസവും ഭക്ഷണവുമെല്ലാം സൗജന്യമായിരിക്കും. സര്‍ക്കാര്‍, എയ്ഡഡ് സ്‌കൂളിലെ വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്കായാണ് ക്യാമ്പ്. ഹൈസ്‌കൂള്‍, പ്ലസ്ടു വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്ക് പങ്കെടുക്കാം. കഴിഞ്ഞ പരീക്ഷയില്‍ 50 ശതമാനത്തില്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ മാര്‍ക്ക് നേടിയ വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികളെയാണ് പരിഗണിക്കുക. ഒരുക്യാമ്പില്‍ 100 വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികളെ പങ്കെടുപ്പിക്കാം. മുസ്ലിം, ക്രിസ്ത്യന്‍, പാഴ്‌സി, ജൈന്‍, സിക്ക്, ബുദ്ധമതം എന്നീ വിഭാഗങ്ങളില്‍പ്പെടുന്നവരെയാണ് തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുക. ഇതില്‍ 30 ശതമാനം പെണ്‍കുട്ടികള്‍ക്കായി സംവരണം ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.
ഓരോ ജില്ലകളിലെയും ജില്ലാ ഭരണകൂടത്തിനാണ് ക്യാമ്പ് സംഘടിപ്പിക്കാനുള്ള ചുമതല. ഓരോ ജില്ലയിലും പരമാവധി പത്ത് ക്യാമ്പുകള്‍ വീതം നടത്തും. ഡിസംബറിനകം എല്ലാ ജില്ലകളിലും ക്യാമ്പുകള്‍ പൂര്‍ത്തിയാക്കാനാണ് തീരുമാനം. ക്യാമ്പില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കുന്ന വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്കും റിസോഴ്‌സ് പേഴ്‌സണ്‍സിനുമുള്ള എല്ലാ ചെലവുകളും ന്യൂനപക്ഷക്ഷേമവകുപ്പ് വഹിക്കും.
മുസ്ലിം വിഭാഗത്തിലെ വിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്ക് ഉപരിപഠനസാധ്യതകളെയും ജോലിസാധ്യതകളെയുംകുറിച്ച് വേണ്ടത്ര അവബോധമില്ലെന്ന് വകുപ്പ് കണ്ടെത്തിയതിനെത്തുടര്‍ന്നാണ് പദ്ധതി ആവിഷ്‌കരിച്ചത്
Courtesy to Mathrubumi.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
BOUNDARIES DEFINED...LET THE BALL ROLLS NOT BEYOND
The boundaries defined..Let the ball roll not beyond.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India in The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd V. Sanjay Dalia and Another (2015) 42 SCD 753 held that the Plaintiffs cannot harp on the provisions of Section 134 f the Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 62 of Copy Right Act 1957, surpassing the provisions of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure and to interpret it in such a way to fix the territorial jurisdiction of filing the plaints so as to harass the defendants to made them to travel a long for litigation.
The Supreme Court observed that intention of Legislature was that the Plaintiff should not go far flung places than that of residence or where he carries on business or works for gain in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to a distant place. If such an interpretation is permitted, the abuse of the provision will take place as the Corporations and big conglomerates might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country.
Therefore, it is clarified that if the plaintiff carries on business or has his principle place of business or works for gain at a place where cause of action also arose, the plaintiff has to file the suit at that place and not at its branch office in a different location.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India in The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd V. Sanjay Dalia and Another (2015) 42 SCD 753 held that the Plaintiffs cannot harp on the provisions of Section 134 f the Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 62 of Copy Right Act 1957, surpassing the provisions of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure and to interpret it in such a way to fix the territorial jurisdiction of filing the plaints so as to harass the defendants to made them to travel a long for litigation.
The Supreme Court observed that intention of Legislature was that the Plaintiff should not go far flung places than that of residence or where he carries on business or works for gain in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to a distant place. If such an interpretation is permitted, the abuse of the provision will take place as the Corporations and big conglomerates might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country.
Therefore, it is clarified that if the plaintiff carries on business or has his principle place of business or works for gain at a place where cause of action also arose, the plaintiff has to file the suit at that place and not at its branch office in a different location.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)