Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate in Case of Extradition inquiry

Once a request for extradition is received in India, the Central Government may by virtue of Section 5 of the Extradition Act issue an order to any Magistrate who would have jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction to inquire into the case. Section 5 of the Extradition Act reads as under: Continue reading “Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate in Case of Extradition inquiry”

Extradition under Treaty between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United States of America

Section 2 (c) of the Extradition Act, 1962 defines “extradition offences” as:-

“(i) in relation to a foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition treaty with that State;
(ii) in relation to a foreign State other than a treaty State an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a foreign State and includes a composite offence.” Continue reading “Extradition under Treaty between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United States of America”

Consequence of letting out premises to same tenant for limited periods more than once after expiry of each such period

In Smt. Ddhanwanti Versus D.D. Gupta (1986 3 S.C.C 1 it was held that obtaining permission for letting out the premises to the same tenant for limited periods more than once after expiry of each such period would not by itself be sufficient to prove that the premises were available for being let out for the indefinite period without actually showing the absence of the landlords’ intention to occupy the premises. It was held that such successive grants of permission were not vitiated. Continue reading “Consequence of letting out premises to same tenant for limited periods more than once after expiry of each such period”

The Kolkata Land Revenue Act, 2003

Part III – Act of the West Bengal Legislature.
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
LAW DEPARTMENT
Legislative

NOTIFICATION

No. 2198-L—31st December, 2003. The following Act of the West Bengal Legislature, having been assented to by the Governor is hereby published for general information :–
West Bengal Act XV of 2003

The Kolkata Land Revenue Act, 2003
&
The Kolkata Land Revenue (Ammendment) Act, 2003.

[Passed by the West Bengal Legislature.]

[Assent of the Governor was first published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary of the 6th August, 2003.] Continue reading “The Kolkata Land Revenue Act, 2003”

Monthly Payments of a West Bengal Government Employee

 Under West Bengal Service Rules, Part 1

Classification of posts and Services (ROPA 1998)

  1. Group A All Govt. employees drawing pay or scale of pay with the
    maximum above Rs.10,175/-
  2. Group B Maximum of Rs. 10,175/- or below but above Rs. 7,050/-
  3. Group C Maximum of Rs. 7,050/- or below but above Rs. 4,400/-
  4. Group D Maximum of Rs. 4,400/- / below

Continue reading “Monthly Payments of a West Bengal Government Employee”

Government of India Women Empowerment Schemes

 

Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Scheme
One Stop Centre Scheme
Women Helpline Scheme
UJJAWALA : A Comprehensive Scheme for Prevention of trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation
Working Women Hostel
Ministry approves new projects under Ujjawala Scheme and continues existing projects
SWADHAR Greh (A Scheme for Women in Difficult Circumstances)
Support to Training and Employment Programme for Women (STEP)
NARI SHAKTI PURASKAR
Awardees of Stree Shakti Puruskar, 2014 & Awardees of Nari Shakti Puruskar
Awardees of Rajya Mahila Samman & Zila Mahila Samman
Mahila E-Haat
Mahila Shakti Kendras (MSK)
NIRBHAYA
Mahila police Volunteers

Continue reading “Government of India Women Empowerment Schemes”

A plaintiff can on strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself

So far as the question of possession is concerned, as mentioned earlier, both the trial court and the first appellate court have accepted the plaintiff’s case that he was in possession of the suit site ever since he purchased the same in 1947. This is essentially a finding of fact. That finding is based on evidence. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in coming to the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff after the sale deed in his favour is not a relevant circumstance. We are of opinion that it is an extremely important circumstance. The plaintiff can on the strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself to the suit property. Once it is accepted, as the trial court and the first appellate court have done, that the plaintiff was in possession of the property ever since 1947 then his possession has to be protected as against interference by someone who is not proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property. On the findings arrived at by the fact finding courts as regards possession, the plaintiff was entitled to the second relief asked for by him even if he had failed to prove his title satisfactorily. Continue reading “A plaintiff can on strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself”