Adv. Aditya Sakhare

  • Home
  • Adv. Aditya Sakhare

Adv. Aditya Sakhare Motive behind this page is just to share legal knowledge and information.. These posts may be useful

18/10/2022

"वेध कायद्याचा"

"हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकिट" - ' वारसा हक्क प्रमाणपत्र' म्हणजे काय ?

"हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकिट" म्हणजे काय ?

वारसा हक्क प्रमाणपत्र म्हणजेच सक्सेशन सर्टिफिकिट आणि हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकिट हे शब्द अनेक वेळा रोजच्या व्यवहारात वापरले जातात. एखादी व्यक्ती मृत्युपत्र न करता मयत झाल्यास अशी सर्टिफिकेट्स आणण्यासाठी वारसांना बरीच धावपळ करावि लागते आणि अशी सर्टिफिकेट्स नसतील तर अनेकवेळा बँक खाती, शेअर्स, मिळकती ह्या बाबतीतील व्यवहार असू शकतात.

अश्या प्रमाणपत्रांची गरज कधी पडू शकते ?
'एखाद्या मरण पावलेल्या व्यक्तीचे वारस कोण हे ठरविणे' हा सक्सेशन सर्टिफिकिट आणि हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकिट ह्यांचा उद्देश जरी एकच असला तरी त्यांची गरज वेगवेगळ्या प्रसंगी पडते. म्हणजेच जंगम (मुव्हेबल) मिळकतींबाबत म्हणजेच (सिक्युरिटी /डेट्स) बँक खाती, मुदत ठेवी, शेअर्स , प्रोमिसरी नोट , डिबेंचर्स पीपीएफ खाते, बँक लॉकर अश्या साठी सक्सेशन सर्टिफिकेटची गरज पडते, तर स्थावर (इममुव्हेबल) म्हणजेच घर, जमीन, दुकान ह्या मिळकतींसाठी हेअरशिप सर्टीफिकेट घ्यावे लागते.

एखादी व्यक्ती मयत झाल्यानंतर त्या व्यक्तीच्या मिळकतींचे विभाजन हे मयत व्यक्तीच्या मृत्यूपत्राप्रमाणे (टेस्टॅमेंटरी) किंवा जर मृत्यूपत्र नसेल तर वारसा-हक्का प्रमाणे (नॉन-टेस्टॅमेंटरी) होते. मृत्युपत्र केले असेल तर आपोआपच वारसा हक्क कायदा लागू होत नाही. पण जर का मृत्यूपत्र केले नसेल किंवा एखादी मिळकत काही कारणाने मृत्युपत्रात नमूद करायची राहून गेल्यास, आपोआप वारसा हक्क कायदा लागू होतो, पण अश्या वेळी मयत व्यक्तीचे वारस कोण असा प्रश्न होतो. केवळ नॉमिनेशन केले असेल तरी हा प्रश्न सुटत नाही, कारण नॉमिनी हा केवळ एक ट्रस्टी असतो, मालक नाही. अगदी नेहमीचे उदाहरण घ्याचे झाल्यास एखादी व्यक्ती मृत्यूपत्र न करता मयत झाली आणि त्या व्यक्तीच्या वारसांना घर-दुकान इ. विकायचे झाल्यास बँका किंवा खरेदीदार हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकिटची मागणी करतात. थोडक्यात सक्षम कोर्टाकडून मयत व्यक्तीचे वारस कोण ह्यावर शिक्कामोर्तब करून घेणे असा ह्याचा अर्थ होऊ शकतो.

बॉम्बे रेग्युलेशन कायदा (८) १८२७ च्या तरतुदींप्रमाणे हेअरशिप सर्टिफिकेट मिळविण्यासाठी मयत व्यक्तीच्या वारसांना, कायदेशीर प्रशासकाला अर्ज करता येतो. त्या अर्जात मयत व्यक्तीचा मृत्यू दिनांक, मृत्यूसमयीचा राहण्याचा पत्ता, सर्व वारसांची नावे आणि पत्ते आणि मयत व्यक्तीच्या मिळकतीचे वर्णन इ. गोष्टींचा उल्लेख अपेक्षित असते. हा अर्ज सक्षम जिल्हा न्यायालयात किंवा निर्देशित न्यायालयात करता येतो. पुण्यासारख्या ठिकाणी हा अधिकार दिवाणी न्यायालयांना दिलेला आहे.

एक महत्वाचे म्हणजे ह्या अर्जातील कथने ही जाणूनबुजून खोटी केल्याचे आढळून आल्यास तो आयपीसी प्रमाणे गुन्ह्याला मदत केल्याचा गुन्हा म्हणजेच अबेटमेंटचा गुन्हा धरला जाईल, या इंडियन सक्सेशन ऍक्ट १९२५ मधील तरतुदी येथे लागू होतात.

असा अर्ज केल्यावर कोर्ट इतर वारसांना नोटीसा काढते, तसेच 'सायटेशन/प्रोक्लमेशन ' नामक नोटीस देखील कोर्टाकडून प्रसिद्ध केली जाते आणि कोर्टाच्या आवारात किंवा मृत व्यक्तीच्या पत्त्याच्या जागी ती चिटकवली जाते तसेच वर्तमानपत्रामध्ये 'पब्लिक नोटीस' देखील दिली जाते जेणेकरून कोणाला काही हरकत असल्यास त्याची नोंद व्हावी. जर कुठलीही हरकत आली नाही तर कायद्याप्रमाणे पुरावे, कागदपत्रे इ. सिद्ध झाल्यावर कोर्ट 'हेअरशीप सर्टिफिकेट' अर्जदाराच्या नावाने योग्य त्या अटी -शर्तींसह रुजू करते.

जर का कोणी हरकत घेतली, तर मात्र असा अर्ज हा एखाद्या दाव्याप्रमाणेच गुणदोषांवर चालतो.

सर्टिफिकिटसाठी कोर्ट फी :
आपल्याकडे न्याय मोफत नाही. त्यामुळे कुठलेही दावे दाखल करताना दाव्याची संपूर्ण कोर्ट फी हि दाव्याच्या व्हॅल्यूएशन प्रमाणे सुरुवातीलाच भरावी लागते, दाव्याचा निकाल मग काहीही लागो. मात्र 'हेअरशीप सर्टिफिकेट' बाबतीत अंतिम ऑर्डर झाल्याच्या दिवशी त्या मिळकतीची जी बाजारभावाप्रमाणे किंमत असेल, त्यावर कोर्ट फी भरावी लागते. सध्या महाराष्ट्रपुरते बोलायचे झाल्यास जास्तीत जास्त रु. ७५,०००/- इतकी कोर्ट फी भरावी लागते. इतर कोर्ट प्रकरणांमध्ये जजमेंट , डिक्री, इतर हुकूम ह्यांची सही शिक्क्यांची प्रमाणित प्रत अर्जदाराला मिळते, मूळ प्रत कोर्टाकडेच राहते . मात्र 'हेअरशीप सर्टिफिकेट' हे स्टॅम्पवर टाईप होऊन मूळ प्रत अर्जदाराला दिली जाते.

समजा एखाद्या व्यक्तीला कोणीही वारस नसतील, तर कोर्टाला अश्या व्यक्तीच्या मिळकतीसंदर्भात सक्षम प्रशासकाची (ऍडमिनिस्ट्रेटर) योग्यत्या अति आणि शर्तींवर नेमणूक करण्याचा अधिकार ह्या कायद्याखाली आहे.

सर्टिफिकिटचा उपयोग :
सक्षम कोर्टाने दिलेले 'हेअरशीप सर्टिफिकिट' हे सबंध भारतभर बंधनकारक असते आणि ते कोणीही नाकारू शकत नाही.
सर्टिफिकिट ज्या व्यक्तीच्या नावाने दिलेले असते त्या व्यक्तीस संबंधित मिळकतीबाबतीत सर्व प्रकारचे व्यवहार करता येतात. मात्र अश्या सर्टिफिकिट मुळे मालकी हक्क मिळाला असे म्हणता येत नाही.

सर्टिफिकिट रद्द होऊ शकते :
असे सर्टिफिकिट हे अर्जदाराने खोटेपणा करून, कोर्टाची फसवणूक करून प्राप्त करून घेतल्याचे सिद्ध झाल्यास कोर्टाला ते रद्द करण्याचा पूर्ण अधिकार आहे. ह्याकरिता "सक्सेशन सर्टिफिकेट" बद्दलच्या इंडियन सक्सेशन ऍक्ट १९२५ च्या (उदा. कलम ३७२ ते ३९०) तरतुदींचा वापर केला जातो.

असे वारसा हक्क प्रमाणपत्र मिळण्यासाठी कोर्टात जावे लागते आणि ह्यासाठी किती वेळ लागेल हे सांगता येत नाही. सबब प्रॅक्टिकली मयत व्यक्तीच्या वारसांकडून ऍफिडेव्हिट किंवा इंडेम्निटी बॉण्ड / हमीपत्र घेऊन व्यवहार होऊ शकतो . ह्याने लोकांचा त्रास, पैसे आणि वेळही वाचतो. अर्थात त्यांनी ही पद्धत अवलंबावी का नाही हा सर्वस्वी त्यांचा निर्णय असतो, कारण ह्या बाबतीत पूर्वी फसवणुकीचे प्रकार घडले आहेत. सबब हा त्रास वाचवायचा असेल तर तज्ज्ञ व्यक्तींचा सल्ला घेऊन मृत्यूपत्र (विल) करून ठेवणे हे इष्ट.

24/12/2021

It would be inappropriate to convict the accused by ignoring distance of fire in a gunshot injury.

(PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (SC)

Acquittal & Bail Cases (October 2016)
(Citation ABC 2016(II) 138 (SC)

23/12/2021

Can a Person be Enrolled as an Advocate Without giving up his Job?

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an SLP filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) assailing the 2020 Gujarat High Court judgement that allowed people working part-time/full time to enroll as Advocate without resigning from their current jobs.

The *Bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh* refused to grant the BCI’s prayer of staying the High Court judgement.

The court agreed to issue the matter in detail as it will have wider ramifications and appointed Senior Counsel K Vishwanathan as the Amicus Curiae. The next date of hearing is 25/01/2022.

In the judgement under challenge, the *Gujarat High Court had read down Rule 1 & 2 of Gujarat Bar Council Enrollment Rules* according to which people from other professions are not allowed to enroll as a lawyer.

However, the High Court clarified that people will have to submit a declaration stating they have left their jobs or their enrolment certificate will be held by the State Bar Council.

At outset, the Bench raised the issue of how a person can be asked to resign before the Bar exam as if the person fails to clear the exam then will not have the option to go back to their old jobs. As per the court, people should not be stopped from becoming professionals.

BCI’s counsel Advocate SN Bhat submitted that there is a qualitative distinction in a member who has been admitted to the Bar. He also said that it is difficult to monitor such a situation.

The Bench asked the counsel if the petitioner has taken the Bar exam. The counsel replied that the petitioner has cleared the Bar exam and the Gujarat Bar Council has not challenged the same.

After hearing the submissions and going through the prayer, the Court refused to grant the ex-parte stay and opined that the case has wider ramifi -cations and the Bench is inclined to hear the case.

16/12/2021

Consumer Protection| Can written statement be accepted beyond 45 days? SC settles pre and post New India Assurance Company Verdict conundrum once and for all .

The Supreme Court adopted a bright-line standard which obviates uncertainty on the legal position before the consumer fora and obviates further litigation.

⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️

Supreme Court: In a case where the NCDRC had condoned a delay for a period beyond the prescribed statutory outer limit just before the decision of the Constitution Bench on 4 March 2020 holding that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that the Constitution Bench judgment would not affect applications that were pending or decided before 4 March 2020.

The Court made clear that such applications for condonation would be entitled to the benefit of the position in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673, which directed consumer fora to render a decision on merits.

Factual Background
👇👇👇👇👇👇

While entertaining a Consumer Complaint, the NCDRC has condoned the delay of 100 days in filing a written statement.

The order of the NCDRC was a few days before the judgment of a Constitution Bench dated 4 March 2020, in New India Assurance company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 which held that the limitation period under Section 13(2)3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 could not be extended beyond the statutorily prescribed period of forty-five days.

The appellants filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC on 3 December 2018 based on two insurance policies on the ground of an alleged fire that took place at the factory of the appellant.

The respondent received the summons on 20 May 2019 together with the order of the NCDRC and a complete set of papers consisting of the consumer complaint and documents.

The respondent filed its written statement on 23 September 2019 together with IA No 15390 of 2019 for condonation of a delay of 100 days.

The NCDRC, by its order dated 25 February 2020, condoned the delay subject to the respondent paying costs of Rs 50,000.

What led to the confusion?
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

A series of judgments, before and after the Constitution Bench verdict, gave contradictory views with respect to discretion of NCDRC to condone the delay beyond 45 days.

Here’s how the various Supreme Court verdicts created uncertainty:

Reference to the Constitution Bench
👇👇👇👇👇

The decision in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, which was a three Judge Bench decision, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five Judge Bench.

During the pendency of the matter before the Constitution Bench
👇👇👇

Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Grand Venezia Buyers Association, (2018) 17 SCC 255.

Parties were permitted to file written statements beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to payment of appropriate costs.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673.

👇👇👇

The consumer fora may accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter.

Constitution Bench Verdict
🚿🚿🚿🚿🚿🚿🚿🚿

New India Assurance company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 [Constitution Bench]

The Constitution Bench reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J.Merchant and held that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all.

“28. It is true that “justice hurried is justice buried”.
But in the same breath it is also said that “justice delayed is justice denied”.

The legislature has chosen the latter, and for a good reason.

It goes with the objective sought to be achieved by the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide speedy justice to the consumer.

It is not that sufficient time to file a response to the complaint has been denied to the opposite party.

It is just that discretion of extension of time beyond 15 days (after the 30 days’ period) has been curtailed and consequences for the same have been provided under Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

It may be that in some cases the opposite party could face hardship because of such provision, yet for achieving the object of the Act, which is speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, hardship which may be caused to a party has to be ignored.”

District Forum can’t extend limitation period of 45 days for filing response under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act.
👇👇👇👇👇👇

Matter decided right after the Constitution Bench verdict

👇👇👇👇👇

Daddy’s Builders Private Limited v. Manisha Bhargava, (2021) 3 SCC 669.

The decision was rendered on 11 February 2021 after the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra).

That was a case where the NCDRC in a judgment dated 4 September 2020, had confirmed the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 26 September 2018 rejecting an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Ultimately it was left to the concerned fora to accept written statements beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case.

Conclusion
👇👇👇👇

Having regard to the prospective effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited and the orders in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Bhasin Infotech, which had recognized an element of discretion pending the reference, the Court held that no case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits.

[Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021, decided on 14.12.2021].

11/12/2021

HC:When motive is of no consequences - Circumstantial Evidence

Murder - Motive - when not material - Accused allegedly killed his wife by means of a sickle on ground of her infidelity - Testimony of brother and mother of deceased that accused used to take suspicion on character of deceased-wife - Motive is not sufficiently established by prosecution - Prosecution has established that on day of incident deceased was in company of accused - No plausible explanation forthcoming by accused as to homicidal death of his wife - Thus, motive is of no consequences.

Case:
Hanmant Nagnath Surwase Vs. State of Maharashtra

Citation:
2020 ALL MR (cri) 3498.

11/12/2021

SC:Unlawful assembly at time of offence once established - question of proving specific offences does not arise.

Once formation of unlawful assembly at time of offence is established, question of specific role of individual accused is rendered secondary - That is, prosecution need not prove specific overt act on part of each and every member.

Case:
Duleshwar Vs. State of M.P

Citation:
2020 ALL SCR (cri) 226

11/12/2021

Supreme Court of India-S.438- Anticipatory bail-Second bail petition-Maintainability-Petition under S. 438 CrPC rejected on ground that appellant had filed a petition earlier and same had been withdrawn

Held, petition was for anticipatory bail and one filed earlier might have been withdrawn in a given situation, without inviting court to consider same on merits-On change of circumstances, when another application under S.438 Crpc was filed, High Court should have considered same on merits-Principle of res judicata could not have operated in an application for bail-Order dt. 7-3-2017 set aside-Bail application revived before high court (Paras 3 & 4).

Case
Rani Dudeja Vs. State of Haryana.

Citation:
(2017) 13 SCC 555

11/12/2021

SC: S. 397 CrPC - Ex parte dismissal of revision petition.

Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants herein from all the charges under Ss. 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. Additional Sessions Judge while partly allowing the appeal upheld the order of Judicial Magistrate in respect of other two accused and convicted appellants herein under Ss. 323, 324 and 452 IPC. Appellants filed criminal revision before High Court, at at that time of hearing, none appeared for appellants. High Court dismissed the revision ex parte. High Court, while dismissing the revision, did not assign any reason. It was held, the least that was expected was that High Court will apply its judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects arising in the case and then pass appropriate orders. High Court failed to do this and hence interference as called for. Case was remanded to High Court for deciding the revision petition afresh.

Case:
Harveer Singh Vs. State of UP.

Citation:
(2019) 4 SCC 633.

11/12/2021

SC:A judgment without adverting to all the facts of the case cannot be sustained.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Finding of fact recorded by forum below binding on High Court - Instantly High Court not agreeing with such well considered finding - High Court also not adverting to all facts. Judgment not sustainable (Para 7,10,11).

Case:
Monthi Menezes (D) By Lr. Vs. Devaki Amma (D) By Lr. and Anr.

Citation:
2019 (4) Supreme 645

11/12/2021

SC: There can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or neccessitate while addition or alteration of charges, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so

S. 216 - Addition or alteration of charge during trial - Held, permissible if the court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. If during trial the trial court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate (Para 10).

Case:
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat.

Citation:
(2004) 5 SCC 347: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603: AIR 2004 SC 2078: 2004 Cri LJ 2018: (2004) 3 Mah LJ 1074: (2004) 3 MPLJ 593

11/12/2021

SC:Evidence not available to prove that deceased was bed ridden and deaf, sale deed valid.

Ex*****on of sale deed - Challenge - Ground of physical condition and nmental capacity of deceased-executant Except for bald statement in plaint there is no evidence of mental impairment of deceased - No credible evIdence that deceased was bedridden - Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness Son of deceased failed to lead any evidence in support of his averment that deceased was bedridden and mentally impaired - Sale deed cannot be faulted.

Case:
Raja Ram Vs. Jai Prakash Singh

Citation:
2020 ALL SCR 176

05/12/2021

Constitution of India 1950 Article 20(2)sec. 138 of N.I.act,sec.406/420 of IPC and sec. 26 of General clauses act 1897 Double Jeopardy-- - - -Rule of Double Jeopardy not applicable.2012 S C. P.190. Sangitale Mahendrabhai patel v/s state of Gujrat

Address

205, Indulal Complex, Shastri Road, Navi Peth

Telephone

9011440077

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Adv. Aditya Sakhare posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Adv. Aditya Sakhare:

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice?

Share