Bharathadityalu

  Courts Should Direct Parties To File Affidavits Of Assets & Liabilities Before Granting Maintenance: Patna High Court The Court held that affidavits of assets and liabilities are essential for assessing the parties’ status, needs, and earning capacity before determining maintenance. Cause Title: Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani The Patna High Court has held that before passing a final order of maintenance, Family Courts are under a statutory obligation to direct parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities and that only after considering such affidavits can the status of the parties, their assets, needs, and earning capacities be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of maintenance. The High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife, arguing that the order was passed mechanically, without properly assessing his financia...

  When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court. Cause Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS. The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff. “Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the da...

Sec 138 and 139 under NI act Section 138: Dishonour of Cheque for Insufficiency, etc., of Funds This section deals with the criminal offense of cheque dishonour (bouncing). If a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the drawer's account or for other specified reasons, the drawer can face legal action. Punishment for Section 138: If a person is found guilty of an offence under Section 138, they can be punished with: Imprisonment: A term of imprisonment which may extend to two years, or Fine: A fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or Both: Both imprisonment and fine. Key points related to Section 138: Criminal Offence: Cheque bounce under Section 138 is a criminal offense, providing a strong deterrent. Conditions for Offence: For an offence to be made out, certain conditions must be met: The cheque must have been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The cheque must be presented to the bank within its period of valid...

  Whether Issuing a Blank Cheque under Indian Law: Legal Validity, Section 138, and Judicial Precedents Issuing a blank cheque , where only the signature is affixed and all other particulars are left blank, is a common practice in many business and personal transactions in India. While this might seem risky at first glance, Indian law has laid down clear principles regarding the legality and implications of such instruments. Is Issuing a Blank Cheque Legal? Yes, issuing a blank cheque is legally valid if the cheque is signed and voluntarily handed over to the payee , with authorization to fill in the remaining details, such as the amount and date. This practice is covered under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , which recognizes the authority of a holder in due course to complete an inchoate instrument. Relevance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 deals with the dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds or stop payment instructio...