Category Archives: Useful Information

Roznama in an Indian Court

What is a Roznama?

Roznama is the register of the daily proceedings of a court case, maintained in every Indian Court. It contains the activity in a case and also records if any orders were passed in the case.

Roz = Day / Daily
Nama = Name / Record / Log / Register

Who maintains the Roznama?

The Roznama is maintained by the Court Clerk or Bench Clerk

What details are entered in the Roznama?

The Roznama lists details of the daily proceedings in a particular case.

Amongst other things, the Roznama includes:

  1. Court Name
  2. Court Room Number
  3. Case No. and Type
  4. Name of the Plaintiff or Applicant or Appellant
  5. Name of the Defendant or Respondent
  6. Chronological sequence of events in the case

The Schedule of Minutes of the case, includes the chronological events like:

  1. Date of Hearing
  2. Exhibit No. (if any exhibit was submitted to the Court)
  3. Progress of the case or Order passed on that Date
  4. Next Date of Hearing given by the Judge
Roznama Lawgic.info (C)

The Roznama contains minutes of the Court Proceedings

Examples of Entries in the Roznama:

Business : Resumed Before Shri XYZ – Judge Presiding Over C.R. No. 1 Nobody present when called. Adjourned for Hearing on Exhibit 4 by Plaintiff
Next Purpose : Hearing In Notice Not Before 2.45 PM
Next Hearing Date : 08-10-2011

Exhibits : 22/A – Vakalatnama of Plaintiff
Business : Resumed before the court. Adv. for Plaintiff present and filed vakalatnama of Plaintiff. On oral request, adjourned for say of plaintiff on Ex. 11 as last chance.
Next Purpose : Reply In Notice Not Before 2.45 PM
Next Hearing Date : 16-02-2011

Where can the Roznama be seen?

The Roznama of that day can be seen by the party or his lawyer on the same day of the hearing. Alternatively, if you want to check the Roznama of a previous date, then you need to make an application and pay the necessary fees as per the Court Manual. (For the Maharashtra Court Rules see: http://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/civil/html/chapter29.html)

Some Courts in Maharashtra and other states, allow you to see the Roznama of a matter online on their website.

Screenshot of Roznama / Daily Status on the Maharashtra District Courts Website

Screenshot of Roznama / Daily Status on the Maharashtra District Courts Website

Screenshot of Roznama / Daily Status on the Maharashtra District Courts Website

Screenshot of Roznama / Daily Status on the Maharashtra District Courts Website

 

 

 

How To Transfer A Used Two Wheeler in Maharashtra

This article deals with the procedure of transferring a user two wheeler after purchase.

What documents are needed for transfer of the two wheeler?

The seller needs to give to the buyer:

  • Original RC Book or RC Card of the vehicle
  • Valid Tax Payment receipt
  • Valid Insurance
  • 2 Self Attested Copies of PAN Card
  • 2 Self Attested Copy of Address Proof / Aadhaar Card / Passport etc.

Within how many days do I need to report the transaction to the RTO?

As per section 50 of the (Central) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

50. Transfer of ownership:
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,—
(a) the transferor (i.e. seller) shall,—
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee (i.e. buyer); and

(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)—

(A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or

(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,—
(I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or
(II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;

(b) the transferee (i.e. the buyer) shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

What if I have not transferred a vehicle that I have purchased or sold? What are the consequences if the vehicle is still in the name of the previous owner?

As per section 50 of the (Central) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5): Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.
(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub-section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.
(5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub-section (2).

What are the forms required to sell or purchase a two wheeler in Mumbai / Maharashtra?


Form 28 Form 29 Form 30 Form TCA
1 Copy: Change of Address in RC
1 Copy: Transfer of Ownership 1 Copy: Transfer of Ownership 1 Copy: Transfer of Ownership
1 Copy: Assignment of New Reg No. from other RTO
Eg: MH 01 to MH 04
1 Copy: Assignment of New Reg No. from other RTO
Eg: MH 01 to MH 04
Total: 3 copies Total: 2 copies Total: 1 copy Total:

The Difference In Interpretation of The Words “May” and “Shall” In Law in India

The Difference In Interpretation of The Words "May" and "Shall" In Law in India

The Difference In Interpretation of The Words “May” and “Shall” In Law in India

Did you know that the words “may” and “shall” could be used interchangeably? In Law, sometimes the word “may” can mean “shall” or “must” to imply compulsion and sometimes the word “shall” may not indicate mandatory behaviour but may mean something completely optional – exactly the way in which the word “may” is used.

This article deals with the Interpretation of the words “may” and “shall” in Indian Law and what they really mean. Since these words are not technical terms as far as Law is concerned, reliance is placed upon various Case Law, which helps us understand how to interpret these terms.

Dictionary Meanings

May

1. (used to express possibility):
It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission):
You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.):
I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer):
May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)

Shall

1. plan to, intend to, or expect to:
I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will:
You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:
The meetings of the council shall be public.
4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations):
Shall we go?

Case Law

M/s. Mahaluxmi Rice Mills & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors

It is significant to note that the word used for the seller to realise market fee from his purchaser is “may” while the word used as for the seller to pay the market fee to the Committee is “shall”. Employment of the said two monosyllables of great jurisprudential import in the same clause dealing with two rights regarding the same burden must have two different imports. The legislative intendment can easily be discerned from the frame of the sub-clause that what is conferred on the seller is only an option to collect market fee from his purchaser, but the seller has no such option and it is imperative for him to remit the fee to the Committee. In other words, the Market Committee is entitled to collect market fee from the seller irrespective of whether the seller has realised it from the purchaser or not.

Rajender Mohan Rana & Ors vs Prem Prakash Chaudhary & Ors

Section 55 uses the word “may sue‟ which indicates a discretionary element that a joint bhumidhar may approach the Court of Revenue Assistant for partition. Normally, the word “may‟ means discretion and is not mandatory. In the present case we do not see any reason why the word “may‟ in Section 55, should be read as “must‟ or “shall‟. Courts do not interpret the word “may‟ as “shall” unless such interpretation is necessary and required to void absurdity, inconvenient consequence or is mandated by the intent of the legislature which is collected from other parts of the statute. While examining the third aspect, the courts examine the purpose, object, design and scope of the statute.

10. To reiterate the words “may” and “shall” are distinct in meaning. While one confers a discretionary power, the latter one pelts out mandatory directions. These words are not synonymous but may be used interchangeably if the context requires such interpretation.

Amicable resolution of disputes and differences is encouraged and recognized by law. It is not forbidden. The courts while interpreting provisions of law tend to support settlement and mutual agreements. Unless a specific provision of law is breached and violated, a settlement agreement is not prohibited. The effort of Court is to minimize litigation and not to multiply it.

 

Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 166

“7. …It follows that the order to be passed must be discretionary and the power to pass it must, therefore, be directory and not mandatory. In other words, the word “may”, used before “stay” in Section 442 of the Act really means “may” and not “must” or “shall” in such a context. In fact, it is not quite accurate to say that the word “may”, by itself, acquires the meaning of “must” or “shall’ sometimes. This word, however, always signifies a conferment of power. That power may, having regard to the context in which it occurs, and the requirements contemplated for its exercise, have annexed to it an obligation which compels its exercise in a certain way on facts and circumstances from which the obligation to exercise it in that way arises. In other words, it is the context which can attach the obligation to the power compelling its exercise in a certain way. The context, both legal and factual, may impart to the power that obligatoriness.
8. Thus, the question to be determined in such cases always is whether the power conferred by the use of the word “may” has, annexed to it, an obligation that, on the fulfilment of certain legally prescribed conditions, to be shown by evidence, a particular kind of order must be made. If the statute leaves no room for discretion the power has to be exercised in the manner indicated by the other legal provisions which provide the legal context. Even then the facts must establish that the legal conditions are fulfilled. A power is exercised even when the court rejects an application to exercise it in the particular way in which the applicant desires it to be exercised. Where the power is wide enough to cover both an acceptance and a refusal of an application for its exercise, depending upon facts, it is directory or discretionary. It is not the conferment of a power which the word “may” indicates that annexes any obligation to its exercise but the legal and factual context of it. This as we understand it, was the principle laid down in the case cited before us: Frederic Guilder Julius v. Right Rev. Lord Bishop of Oxford: Re v. Thomas Thellusson Carter.(5 AC 214).
10. The principle laid down above has been followed consistently by this Court whenever it has been contended that the word “may” carries with it the obligation to exercise a power in a particular manner or direction. In such a case, it is always the purpose of the power which has to be examined in order to determine the scope of the discretion conferred upon the donee of the power. If the conditions in which the power is to be exercised in particular cases are also specified by a statute then, on the fulfilment of those conditions, the power conferred becomes annexed with a duty to exercise it in that manner. This is the principle we deduce from the cases of this Court cited before us: Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwandin v. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad (AIR 1963 SC 120), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1618), Sardar Govindrao v. State of M.P.(AIR 1965 SC 1222), Shri A.C. Aggarwal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi v. Smt Ram Kali, Bashira v. State of U.P.(AIR 1968 SC 1) and Prakash Chand Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd.((1970) 2 SCC 806 ).”

Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 11 SCC 500

To elucidate the words “may” and “shall”, and interpret them, the Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 11 SCC 500 has held as under:-

“15. The courts have taken a view that where the expression “shall” has been used it would not necessarily mean that it is mandatory. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case, the conjunctive reading of the relevant provisions along with other provisions of the Rules, the purpose sought to be achieved and the object behind implementation of such a provision. This Court in Sarla Goel v. Kishan Chand, took the view that where the word “may” shall be read as “shall” would depend upon the intention of the legislature and it is not to be taken that once the word “may” is used, it per se would be directory. In other words, it is not merely the use of a particular expression that would render a provision directory or mandatory. It would have to be interpreted in the light of the settled principles, and while ensuring that intent of the Rule is not frustrated.”

Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132

Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132 held as below:

“26. Thus, this Court, keeping in view the objects of the Act, had considered whether the language in a particular section, clause or sentence is directory or mandatory. The word „shall‟, though prima facie gives impression of being of mandatory character, it requires to be considered in the light of the intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the scope of the statute, its nature and design and the consequences that would flow from the construction thereof one way or the other. In that behalf, the court is required to keep in view the impact on the profession, necessity of its compliance; whether the statute, if it is avoided, provides for any contingency for non-compliance; if the word „shall‟ is construed as having mandatory character, the mischief that would ensue by such construction; whether the public convenience would be subserved or public inconvenience or the general inconvenience that may ensue if it is held mandatory and all other relevant circumstances are required to be taken into consideration in construing whether the provision would be mandatory or directory. If an object of the enactment is defeated by holding the same directory, it should be construed as mandatory whereas if by holding it mandatory serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons of general public without much furthering the object of enactment, the same should be construed as directory but all the same, it would not mean that the language used would be ignored altogether. Effect must be given to all the provisions harmoniously to suppress public mischief and to promote public justice.”

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622] this Court held:

“Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words “shall” or “must”. But this is not conclusive as “shall” and “must” have, sometimes, been interpreted as “may”. What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the “duty” has been set out. Even if the “duty” is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a “right”.

Prof. Wade, also, in his well-known treatise ‘Administrative Law’, 8th Edition, at page 609 makes a distinction between a discretionary power and obligatory duties in the following terms:

“Obligatory duties must be distinguished from discretionary powers. With the latter mandamus has nothing to do: it will not, for example, issue to compel a minister to promote legislation. Statutory duties are by no means always imposed by mandatory language with words such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’. Sometimes they will be the implied counterparts of rights, as where a person ‘may appeal’ to a tribunal and the tribunal has a correlative duty to hear and determine the appeal. Sometimes also language which is apparently merely permissive is construed as imposing a duty, as where ‘may’ is interpreted to mean ‘shall’. Even though no compulsory words are used, the scheme of the Act may imply a duty.

A. C. Aggarwal … vs Mst. Ram Kali, Etc. AIR 1 1968 SCR (1) 205

“Under section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of any cognizable offence brought to his notice. The words “may take cognizance” in the context means “must take cognizance”. He has no discretion in the matter, otherwise that section will be violative of Article 14.”

The Difference Between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Explained Visually)

Lawgic.info endeavours to simplify the law, so that its understanding is easy. One of the ways of doing that is to teach law using visual aids, which is contrary to conventional practice.

I have not seen Law books which use flowcharts or infographics to explain legal concepts or statutes. Although some law books do use them to explain procedural aspects of law, the substantive aspects are neglected.

The below flowchart, visually explains the difference between Murder (punishable under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code) and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (punishable under section 299 of the Indian Penal Code).

Flowchart to determine Murder

Murder is defined in the IPC as:

300. Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
(Secondly) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
(Thirdly) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in­flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
(Fourthly) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Culpable Homicide is defined in the IPC as:

299. Culpable homicide
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

This visual aid is for academic purposes only and cannot be used to interpret a specific case.
Was this visual aid helpful? If Yes, then do share it with others. If not, then do let us know why. Send in your improvements, error reports or suggestions to info [at] lawgic.info