HUSBAND-RIGHT-DV

What is the husband rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)?

In cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the husband, as the respondent, has certain legal rights and defenses. Below is a detailed breakdown of the husband’s rights:

1. Right to Fair Trial and Natural Justice

  • The husband has the right to be heard and present his case under Section 12 of the DV Act.
  • He has the right to file a written statement/response to the allegations made in the complaint.

2. Right to Challenge Jurisdiction

  • The husband can challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court if:
    • The complaint is filed in an unrelated jurisdiction.
    • There is a violation of the procedural requirements.

3. Right to File Counter Affidavit and Evidence

  • The husband has the right to:
    • Submit documentary evidence.
    • Present oral evidence and witnesses to disprove the allegations.

4. Right to Contest Interim Orders

  • If an interim protection order, maintenance order, or residence order is granted under Section 23, the husband can:
    • File an application for modification, alteration, or cancellation of such orders under Section 25 of the DV Act.
    • Challenge any adverse order before the Sessions Court or High Court.

5. Right to File for Quashing of Proceedings

  • The husband can file a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS in the High Court to quash the DV proceedings if:
    • The allegations are false, frivolous, or malicious.
    • No prima facie case is made out.
    • The complaint is an abuse of legal process.

6. Right to Protection Against Misuse

  • The husband can file a petition under Section 250 BNSS for discharge if the allegations lack merit.
  • He can also file a counter-case for defamation (Section 356(2) BNS) or filing false evidence (Section 227, 229 BNS) if the allegations are fabricated.

7. Right to Seek Protection Against Misuse of Residence Order

  • Under Section 17 and 19 of the DV Act, a wife can seek residence orders.
  • If the husband is the sole owner of the house, he can:
    • Oppose the residence order by providing proof of ownership.
    • Seek modification if the wife has alternative accommodation.

8. Right to Fair Maintenance Determination

  • If a maintenance order is passed under Section 20 of the DV Act, the husband has the right to:
    • Contest the quantum of maintenance.
    • Seek a reduction in maintenance if the wife is earning or has sufficient means.

9. Right to Mediation or Settlement

  • The husband can opt for mediation to amicably resolve the matter.
  • He can submit a mutual settlement proposal to avoid prolonged litigation.

10. Right to File for Custody or Visitation of Children

  • Under Section 21 of the DV Act, if the wife seeks custody of the children, the husband can:
    • Contest the custody.
    • Seek visitation rights or joint custody.

11. Right to Appeal

  • The husband can file an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against any order passed by the Magistrate.
  • The appeal must be filed before the Sessions Court within 30 days of the order.

12. Right to Speedy Trial

  • The husband has the right to request a speedy disposal of the case to avoid prolonged harassment.

Legal Precedents Favoring Husband in DV Cases

  1. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 – Clarified the definition of “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
  2. S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 – Held that the wife has no right to claim residence in the property owned by the husband’s parents.
PRINTING

Printing or Publishing any matter relating to court proceeding without permission

Printing or Publishing Matter Relating to Court Proceedings Without Permission: Legal Consequences and Provision

Publishing or printing any matter relating to a court proceeding without obtaining prior permission, especially in cases where such proceedings are required to be kept confidential, can lead to serious legal consequences.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

  • Prohibition: Disclosure of the identity of a victim of certain offenses, such as rape or sexual assault, is strictly prohibited.
  • Punishment:
    • Imprisonment for up to 2 years and a fine.
    • Exception: Publication is permissible if written consent is obtained from the victim or if permitted by the court.

2. Section 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

  • Contempt by Publication: Publishing matters that interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice or affect a pending proceeding can be treated as criminal contempt.
  • Punishment:
    • Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or
    • Fine up to ₹2,000, or both.

3. Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

  • In Camera Proceedings:
    • Proceedings of cases involving sexual offenses (under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, and 376E of IPC) shall be conducted in camera.
    • Publishing proceedings of such trials without prior permission is prohibited.
  • Violation Consequences: Punishable under applicable laws, including contempt and IPC provisions.

4. Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923

  • Publication of Confidential Matters:
    • Any unauthorized disclosure of confidential or sensitive court matters may be penalized under this Act if it concerns state security or public interest.

5. Section 228 of IPC – Intentional Insult or Interruption to Public Servant

  • Publishing any matter that insults or interrupts judicial proceedings may attract punishment under Section 228 IPC:
    • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both.

Case Law References:

  1. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966 AIR 1, SC 1967)
    • The Supreme Court held that courts have the power to prohibit the publication of court proceedings if necessary to prevent injustice.
  2. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603
    • The Supreme Court upheld that courts can restrain media from publishing certain matters if publication can prejudice a fair trial.

Permission Required:

  • Courts may allow publication of proceedings with explicit permission.
  • In cases involving sexual offenses, publication is allowed only with the consent of the victim and the court.

Consequences of Violation:

  • Criminal prosecution under IPC, Contempt of Courts Act, and other relevant statutes.
  • Civil liability in case of damage caused due to unauthorized publication.

Landmark High Court Judgments

Landmark High Court Judgments Every Legal Professional Must Know! ⚖️

Here’s a comprehensive table of key High Court judgments across constitutional law, criminal law, corporate law, cyber law, labor law, and more. Each case is summarized concisely for quick reference and better understanding.

landmarkjudgement

NI Act Allows Filing Of Cheque Dishonour Complaint At Place Of Payee Bank; Accused Can’t Seek Transfer Citing Inconvenience: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a batch of transfer petitions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to transfer the criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act) pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (UT) to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, essentially on the ground that there was no cause of action for the bank to lodge the complaint in Chandigarh, the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ. dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners’ assertation that no part of the cause of action arose within Chandigarh, was of no avail to them, as the law itself allows the institution of a complaint in Chandigarh. The enactment of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act and the Explanation thereto allows the complainant to file a complaint before the Courts within whose jurisdiction the collection branch of the bank falls….

Issues

  1. Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other in exercise of powers under Section 406 of the CrPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which the complaint is filed?
  2. Assuming that the Court in which the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the same, then is it permissible for this Court in exercise of powers under Section 406 of the CrPC to transfer the said complaint to the court having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence?
  3. Whether the expression “that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place.” in Section 406 CrPC embraces in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act?

    Analysis and Decision

    At the outset, referring to Yogesh Upadhaya v. Atlanta Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 170 the Court noted that while dealing with the plea for transfer filed under Section 406 of the CrPC of six complaint cases filed under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act respectively, the Court therein noted K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510, wherein it was held that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has five components:

    (i) drawing of the cheque;
    (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank;
    (iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank;
    (iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and;
    (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

    The Court also noted that it was further held that the jurisdiction to deal with the case vests in the Court having jurisdiction over the territorial limits wherein any of the five acts referred to above occurred. If the five acts were done in five different areas, then any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in those five areas would have jurisdiction and the complainant could choose any one of those Courts.

    Noting that reliance was placed by Yogesh Upadhaya (supra) on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, the Court referred to same and noted that it was held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank is located, i.e., where the cheque is dishonoured upon presentation and not where the complainant’s bank is situated.

    The Court also analysed the changes that came about after the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. Additionally, the Court noted that after the amendment, Section 142(2) made it clear that jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly inserted Section 142-A further clarified this position by validating the transfer of pending cases to the Courts conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment came into force.

    The Court underscored that in Yogesh Upadhaya (supra), after considering Section 142(2) along with Section 142-A of the N.I. Act, it was held that two out of six complaints instituted at Nagpur were in accordance with the legal position. However, since the other four complaints also pertained to the same transaction, the Court felt that it would be advisable to have a common adjudication with a view to obviate the possibility of any contradictory findings being rendered in connection with the said complaints by different courts. In such circumstances, all the six complaints were ordered to be transferred to the South-west district Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi.

    Perusing Section 406 of the CrPC and upon referring to trajectory of authorities pronounced on the provision, the Court reiterated that transfer of cases under Section 406 of the CrPC may be allowed when there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice may not be done and mere convenience or inconvenience of the parties may not by itself be sufficient to pray for transfer. The Court has to appropriately balance the grounds raised in the facts and circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion in a circumspect manner while ordering a transfer under Section 406.

    Further, the Court stated that although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not the power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C should be exercised, yet it is manifest that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

    “This power must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial.”

    The Court also enunciated broad factors, which are not exhaustive, to be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial:

    1. when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

    2. when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

    3. comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

    4. a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability in holding a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused;

    5. and existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice.

    The Court also discussed the phrase ‘expedient for the ends of justice’ which finds place in Section 406 of the CrPC. The Court noted that in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1 it was observed that this phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. It means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The “ends of justice” does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land.

    The Court also stated that-

    “when a complainant institutes a case in a Court of his choosing and such a Court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter then the transfer of such case has to be guided by principles that would achieve the ends of justice. The meaning of “ends of justice” essentially refers to justice for all the parties involved in the litigation.”

    On basis of the aforesaid, the Court said that Section 142 of the N.I. Act, provides the complainant with the right to lodge a complaint, before a Court, within whose jurisdiction, the branch of the bank where the cheque is delivered for collection, is situated. Therefore, the argument of the accused that another Court might also be empowered to take cognizance of the matter under Section 142, since the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction, cannot by itself be a ground for seeking transfer under Section 406 of the CrPC.

    The Court conclusively held that when a cheque is delivered or issued to a person with liberty to present the cheque for collection at any branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered or issued to the branch of the bank, in which, the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, and the Court of the place where such cheque was presented for collection, will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

    It was also mentioned that the word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act has no significance. What is of significance is the expression ‘for collection through an account’, the delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction. In the matter at hand, the Court explained that for the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the CrPC, the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”….

Any Type Of Consultation Or Suggestion Call Us On +91 9211732039 / +91 9891045644.

28709_2024_13_1503_59957_Judgement_06-Mar-2025
1742237098133

WHAT DO IF THE FIR IS FALSE

If a First Information Report (FIR) is false, you can take the following legal steps:

1. Collect Evidence

Gather all possible evidence (documents, witness statements, CCTV footage, etc.) to prove that the FIR is false or baseless.

2. File a Complaint with the Police

Approach the police station where the FIR was filed and submit a written complaint stating that the allegations are false. Provide supporting evidence.

3. Apply for Quashing of FIR (Section 482 CrPC)

You can file a petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the false FIR.

4. File a Counter FIR

If you have been falsely accused with malicious intent, you can file a counter FIR against the complainant for offenses such as:

  • Section 182 IPC – Giving false information to a public servant
  • Section 211 IPC – False charge of an offense
  • Section 500 IPC – Defamation (if applicable)

5. Seek Anticipatory Bail (if needed)

If the FIR is serious and you fear arrest, apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in the Sessions Court or High Court.

6. File a Defamation or Malicious Prosecution Case

If the false FIR has damaged your reputation, you can file a defamation case (Section 499 IPC) or claim compensation for malicious prosecution.

7. Approach the Human Rights Commission (if applicable)

If the false FIR involves police harassment or misuse of power, you can file a complaint with the State or National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Any Type Of Consultation Or Suggestion Call Us On +91 9211732039 / +91 9891045644.

Auroville Residents Have No Right To Be Part Of Council/Committee Formed By Foundation’s Governing Body : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 17) held that the Residents’ Assembly or any individual resident of the Auroville Foundation cannot claim any right to be a part of a Committee or Council constituted by the Governing Board of the Foundation.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasana B Varale set aside the Madras High Court’s order which quashed the standing order of 1st June 2022 constituting the Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC). The High Court had quashed the ATDC constitution, inter alia, on the ground that it was formed without the aid and advice of the Residents’ Assembly.

Allowing the Auroville Foundation’s appeal against the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court observed that as per the Auroville Foundation Act or the Rules made thereunder, no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents’ Assembly or upon any individual resident to be part of the Committee or the Council constituted by the Governing Council.

The Supreme Court held that the functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advising the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the AF Act and not any further.

The Court observed that the High Court “thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the AF Act and in setting aside the impugned notification containing Standing Order dated 01.06.2022.”

Petition filed by disgruntled residents to hamper development of Auroville

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi said, “Some disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing the petitions one after the other, dragging the Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such ill-motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions to the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation.”

While allowing the appeal, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent Natasha Storey which is to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. In a related development, the Supreme Court also allowed another appeal filed by the Auroville Foundation against the NGT’s bar on township expansion project.

The High Court bench of the then Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy delivered the judgment in March 2024, setting aside the constitution of the ATDC. The High Court observed that the residents’ participation in the planning and implementation of the Master Plan was necessary.

“The performance of the functions required by the Act and all the activities relating to the residents of Auroville are vested with the Residents’ Assembly under Section 19 of the Act. It can be seen that it is the Residents’ Assembly that has to carry out those functions and day-to-day activities, not directly by itself, but, by aiding and advising the Governing Board,” the High Court had observed.

The High Court held that the Standing Order granting power to the Governing Board to appoint any person as a member of the ATDC without the advice and consultation of the Residents’ Assembly was ultra vires the Act.

Case : THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION VS. NATASHA STOREY | DIARY NO. – 13723/2024

Any Type Of Consultation Or Suggestion Call Us On +91 9211732039 / +91 9891045644.

137232024_2025-03-17

Motor Accident Claims | ‘Legal Representative’ Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased : Supreme Court

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra have held that legal representative under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) includes dependents of the deceased, not just immediate heirs. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors.  (2025). 

What was the Background of Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Case? 

  • On 25th September 2016, Dheeraj Singh Tomar (24 years old) was traveling in an auto-rickshaw (registration No. MP 30-R-0582) along with other passengers. 
  • The driver of the auto-rickshaw was driving rashly and negligently when the vehicle overturned at Gohad Chauraha Road near Gautum Nagar, Bajrang Washing Centre at Gwalior. 
  • As a result of this accident, Dheeraj Singh Tomar died on the spot, while other passengers suffered injuries. 
  • The appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of Rs. 28,50,000/-. 
  • The appellants submitted that the deceased was earning approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month from his wholesale fruit selling business, which he used to support his family’s daily expenses. 
  • The MACT observed that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the driver and owner of the vehicle) were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation because the driver was operating the vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 
  • The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- with simple interest at 7% per annum to appellant Nos. 1 to 3, calculating based on a notional income of Rs. 4,500/- per month with future prospects at 40%. 
  • The MACT made a deduction of 1/3rd from the calculated amount for personal expenses and did not consider Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 (the father and younger sister of the deceased) as dependents. 
  • Aggrieved by the compensation amount, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, challenging the determination of monthly income and the deduction methodology. 
  • The High Court affirmed the MACT’s findings regarding the compensation amount but directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 
  • Still dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimant-appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the monthly income was incorrectly assessed, and the appropriate multiplier was not applied.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 4,500/-. 
  • The Court noted that while the claimants could not conclusively prove the deceased’s income, it was evident that the accident had taken away a potential earning member of the family. 
  • Referring to the Minimum Wages Act Notification of 2016, the Court determined that the monthly income for an unskilled worker was fixed at Rs. 6,500/-, bringing the annual income to Rs. 78,000/-. 
  • The Court determined that appellant Nos. 4 and 5 (father and younger sister), both not financially independent, would qualify as legal representatives for compensation purposes under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they were dependent on the deceased’s income from his wholesale fruit business. 
  • As a result, the Court adjusted the deduction for personal expenses from 1/3rd to 1/4th, accounting for five dependent family members instead of three. 
  • The Court maintained the High Court’s direction for the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the driver and owner who were jointly and severally liable due to the lack of valid driving licence. 
  • Based on these observations, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation to Rs. 17,52,500/- (increased from the MACT and High Court’s Rs. 9,77,200/-), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 

What are the Landmark Cases Referred to in this Case? 

  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297] – Referenced by the High Court in their judgment to establish that the insurance company should pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner and driver. 
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] – Referenced to establish that the appropriate multiplier for a 24-year-old person is 18. 
  • Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204] – Referenced to emphasize that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure just and fair compensation to the aggrieved party. 
  • Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234] – Referenced to establish that a “legal representative” is one who suffers due to the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be limited to a wife, husband, parent or child. 
  • N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712] – Referenced to support giving a wider interpretation to the term “legal representative” under Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) emphasizing that proving loss of dependency is sufficient to claim compensation. 

What is Section 166 of MV Act? 

  • Section 166(1)(c) permits “all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased” to make an application for compensation where death has resulted from an accident. 
  • The proviso to Section 166(1) mandates that when all legal representatives have not joined in filing the compensation application, those who have not joined must be impleaded as respondents. 
  • The term “legal representative” should be interpreted broadly and not be confined to its narrow definition under succession laws. 
  • A legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a spouse, husband, parent, or child. 
  • The qualification to be considered a legal representative is primarily the establishment of “loss of dependency.” 
  • Any person who can demonstrate dependence on the deceased’s income and consequent financial loss due to their death qualifies as a legal representative. 
  • This interpretation serves the benevolent objective of the Motor Vehicles Act to provide monetary relief to victims or their families affected by motor accidents. 
  • The legislative intent of Section 166 is to ensure that every person who suffers financially due to the death has a legal remedy for obtaining compensation. 
  • The Motor Vehicles Act, being remedial and beneficial legislation, calls for a liberal interpretation of its provisions, including the term “legal representative.” 
8608_2023_17_50_58804_Order_24-Jan-2025
legal-notice

Why the legal notice is necessary?

A legal notice is necessary in civil matters for several important reasons:

  1. Formal Intimation – It serves as an official communication to inform the opposing party about a grievance or intended legal action.
  2. Opportunity for Settlement – It provides the recipient a chance to resolve the matter amicably without going to court, saving time and legal costs.
  3. Legal Requirement – In some cases (e.g., consumer disputes, contract breaches, eviction notices), sending a legal notice is a mandatory step before filing a lawsuit.
  4. Proof of Communication – It acts as evidence that the sender has made an effort to notify the other party before initiating legal proceedings.
  5. Clarity of Claims – It outlines the specific issues, demands, and legal basis of the claim, reducing ambiguity in the dispute.
  6. Prevention of Future Defenses – If the recipient ignores the notice, it can weaken their position in court, as they had an opportunity to respond but failed to act.

Any Type Of Consultation Or Suggestion Call Us On +91 9211732039 / +91 9891045644.