CHEQUE BOUNS - material alteration

sec. 87 CHEQUE was a self drawn CHEQUE, the complainant strike out the words " self" and insert his name in that column . unless it is proved that the alternation was done with the consent of accused, cheque is not valid and cc is not maintainable as it is materially altered under sec. 87 of Negotiable instrument act - 2010[1] A.L.D. CRIMINAL ( BOM.NOC19)-13

LAND ACQUISITION - POSSESSION PRIOR TO SEC. 4[1]

WHEN POSSESSION WAS TAKEN PRIOR TO SEC. 4 [1] NOTIFICATION, NO INTEREST IS TO BE GRANTED UNDER SEC.34 FROM THE DATE OF POSSESSION . THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED FOR DAMAGES OR RENTS. ALREADY AWARDED AMOUNT UNDER AWARD CAN NOT BE DISTURBED AS PER SEC.25. PARTY IS ENTITLED FOR 9% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION AND THEREAFTER 15% TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. AND THE PARTIES ARE LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE LAO FOR FIXING RENT OR DAMAGES.2010 [5] ALT 546.

LAY OUT OF PLOTS - AGRICULTURE LANDS

AP AGRICULTURAL LAND [CONVERSION FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES]ACT 2006 - AP URBAN AREAS [DEVELOPMENT]ACT 1975 - GRANT OF LAYOUT S BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT OF 1975 OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER MUNICIPALITY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, INSISTENCE ON SUBMISSION OF CLEARANCE /PERMISSION UNDER THE 2006 ACT . AS IT DEALS WITH ALL LANDS IRRESPECTIVE OF PLACES OR AREAS, PERMISSION IS NECESSARY FOR LAY OUT. PRIOR TO IT , IT IS NOT NECESSARY.

EVICTION FROM LEASED WAKF PROPERTY - CIVIL SUIT

SEC, 6[5], 7, 85 and 83 of WAKF Act - civil court jurisdiction is barred in respect some disputes incorporated in sec. 6 and 7 of the WAKF Act. even though tribunals are constituted for decided disputes , it can not bar the civil court for entertaining other problems not raised in the WAKF Act. giving lease and eviction etc., are not governed by WAKF act, so civil court has got jurisdiction 2010[5] ALT 36 SC.

SEC. 9 AND OR. 7 , RULE 10 - RETURN OF PLAINT

plaint should not be returned several times for filing suitable documents or relevant documents or original certificates or original documents for numbering. at the stage of scrutiny and registration of suit it is no part of duty of court to insist on production of sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer of the suit- plaintiff will loses suit, if he failed to prove his case,. it is his headache - 2010 [5] ALT 411.