Monday, September 3, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Rules regarding making of a POWER of Attorney

Please read section 4 of PoA Act 1882

"Deposit of original instruments creating powers- of- attorney.- (a)
An instrument creating a power- of- attorney, its execution being
verified by affidavit, statutory declaration or other sufficient
evidence, may, with the affidavit or declaration, .... "

On 9/3/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much Sir.
> I have another doubt.
> When we make a Power of Attorney we are told that it should have two
> witnesseswho witness your signing, with their name address and date.
> We are also told that it should be notarised.
> Where are all these requirements listed out?Power of Attorney act does not
> say any of it.
> Regards
> Mohan Raj
>
> --- On Sun, 2/9/12, Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com> wrote:
>
> From: Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to
> have given false notarised affidavit.
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, crmohanraj@yahoo.com
> Date: Sunday, 2 September, 2012, 8:13 AM
>
>
>
> Dear C R Mohan Raj
>
>
> I believe, Shri Sarbajit Roy , is right in informing ALL herein , that
> you have the right to invoke section 191 / 193, [which is appended hereunder
> fro clairty sake] and disprove it by way of cross-examination or
> counter-affidavit & seeking indepth investigation of it, that will be
> rewarding for you.
>
>
>
> But please keep in mind that if it becomes other way TRUE, the Opponent may
> use the same stick, hence not in vogue off late.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
>
>
> UDAYPRABHU- 093 222 666 17
>
> ==================================================================================================================================
>
>
>
> Indian Penal Code (IPC)
>
>
>
> Section 191. Giving false evidence
>
>
>
> Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law
> to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any
> subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or
> believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false
> evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Indian Penal Code (IPC)
>
>
>
> Section 193. Punishment for false evidence
>
>
>
> Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
> proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in
> any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of
> either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
> also be liable to fine,
>
>
>
> and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other
> case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
> which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========================================================================================================================================
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Satish Kumar Kapoor
>
> Sent: 08/31/12 07:22 PM
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found
> to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Sir
>
>
>
> It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will
> effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why
> Judges will not agree.
>
>
>
> S.K.Kapoor
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is
> found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the
> audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will
> effect the "independence of judiciary".
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
>
> Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is
> found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age"
> <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC"
> <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant
> Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>,
> "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist"
> <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor"
> <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>,
> "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald"
> <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights
> India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>,
> indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm
> Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast
> Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind
> Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London"
> <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>,
> "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar
> Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>,
> "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh"
> <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>,
> "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>,
> "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>,
> "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times"
> <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia"
> <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>,
> "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>,
> humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> First they gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to
> them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against
> hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs
> of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps
> required are:
>
>
>
> 1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom
> proceedings;
>
> 2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and
> orders;
>
> 3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on
> complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges;
>
> 4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts;
> 5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7,
> 15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions.
>
> 6. Etc.
>
>
>
> On a different level:
>
>
>
> 1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth;
>
> 2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public
> life;
>
> 3. Judicial reforms;
>
> 4. Administrative reforms;
>
> 5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, etc.
>
>
>
> I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at
> the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of
> hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic,
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is
> found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones
> son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have
> to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join
> hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the
> Law. rgds. beniwal
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper
> <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp
> Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I know what you mean. I am facing a similar
> serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy".
>
> Just this morning, I filed an application for
> disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the
> letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in
> settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The
> "judge" gave another adjournment!!!!
>
> Now, after if I still fail after one more try,
> am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court.
> I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has
> to be some limit to nonsense.
>
> Could some lawyer friends in this group
> provide some guidance on the matter please?
>
> Would you or any other aggrieved reader
> friends care to team up?
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal
> <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the
> Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> what could a petitioner ( particularly if
> in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral
> argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the
> (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary
> advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the
> statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present
> in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court.
> there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was
> requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other
> similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive
> order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt.
> obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this
> is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper
> <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: Victor Cooper
> <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE -
> If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Friend:
>
>
>
> Right away, I should inform you
> that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles.
> Therefore:
>
>
>
> You should consult good lawyer,
>
> You could consider filing a
> perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal
> jurisprudence),
>
> But you should keep in mind that
> such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original
> complaint,
>
> So, (my preference), do a clever
> written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries,
>
> Wait till your case is heard and
> finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint.
>
>
>
> (I should warn you that India's
> laws are plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is
> so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at
> the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters
> that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they
> will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents
> set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as
> costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will
> give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should
> not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of
> judges.)
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy
> <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: Sarbajit Roy
> <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL.
> ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012,
> 7:21 PM
>
>
>
>
> If it is tendered on affidavit
> (as evidence in chief), you
>
> have the right to disprove it by
> way of cross-examination
>
> or counter-affidavit.
>
>
>
> On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj
> <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sir,
>
> > In my case the Opposite Party
> has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
>
> > Kindly advice as to how I
> proceed?
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Mohan Raj
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL.
> ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
>
> > CONSUMER FORUM
>
> > To:
> humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012,
> 10:25 PM
>
> >
>
> > You should make out an
> application for amendment of complaint.In that
>
> > amendment application, you
> should set out the changes / additions /
>
> > deletions you want made to your
> original complaint, alongwith evidence if
>
> > any.After the same is allowed
> by court, you should compile all the evidence,
>
> > notarise same, and put it up in
> an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
>
> > helps.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad
> vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: prasad vaidya
> <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
>
> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL.
> ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
>
> > CONSUMER FORUM
>
> > To:
> humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012,
> 6:18 AM
>
> >
>
> > to you can file application to
> amend your complaint filled with the District
>
> > consumer forum. You can even
> add additional parties as complainant .
>
> >
>
> > viadya
>
> >
>
> > --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta
> <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: M.K. Gupta
> <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
>
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] PL.
> ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
>
> > CONSUMER FORUM
>
> > To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge
> Forum People's Right to Information"
>
> > <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>
> > Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012,
> 11:00 AM
>
> >
>
> > I
>
> > filed a case against
>
> > a builder (Vatika
>
> > Land Base, Gurgaon) in the
> Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
>
> > admitted.
>
> > After this, another consumer
> told me about some other instances of
>
> > misrepresentation of facts and
> cheating which came to his knowledge from the
>
> > reply of Jaipur Development
> Board on an RTI
>
> > filed by him.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now, what is the procedure to
> add these
>
> > such facts in the petition?
> Please
>
> > enlighten me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.