Steps to be taken in case unauthorized credit ( for example )of Rs.3600 in my SBI bank saving account through Google pay from unknown person

If you have received an unauthorized credit of Rs. 3600 in your SBI bank saving account through Google Pay from an unknown person, Mr. A. Yadav, and you have an apprehension of fraud, here are the steps you should take:

1. **Do Not Refund Immediately**: Do not refund the amount immediately. Scammers often use this trick to get money from unsuspecting victims.

2. **Contact Your Bank**: Notify your bank about the unauthorized transaction. Visit your SBI branch or contact their customer service helpline. Provide them with all the details of the transaction, including the date, amount, and sender's information.

3. **Contact Google Pay Support**: Reach out to Google Pay customer support and report the unauthorized transaction. Provide them with the transaction details and explain your concerns about potential fraud.

4. **Check for Fraud Alerts**: Monitor your bank account and Google Pay account for any unusual activity. Ensure there are no unauthorized debits or attempts to withdraw funds.

5. **File a Police Report**: If you believe the transaction is part of a larger fraud scheme, consider filing a report with your local police. Provide them with all relevant details, including any communication you have had with Mr. A. Yadav.

6. **Consult Bank's Fraud Department**: Speak directly with the fraud department of your bank. They may have specific procedures to handle such cases and can provide further guidance.

7. **Secure Your Accounts**: Change your Google Pay and online banking passwords to something more secure. Enable two-factor authentication if you haven't already.

8. **Document Everything**: Keep detailed records of all communications and steps you take, including emails, phone calls, and screenshots of the transaction and messages.

By following these steps, you can ensure that you handle the situation carefully and minimize the risk of falling victim to fraud.

Maintenance charges

 Maharashtra doesn't have a legal framework for mandatory federation registration.  Maintenance charges depends on the agreement between the societies. Here are two approaches based on a voluntary agreement:

1. Proportionate to Carpet Area:

• This is a fair and widely accepted approach.
• The federation calculates the total carpet area of all buildings across the five societies.
• Each society contributes a share of the total maintenance cost proportional to the carpet area of its buildings.
• For example, if Society A has buildings with a total carpet area of 20% of the total, it would contribute 20% of the maintenance charges.

2. Flat Fee per Building:

• This is a simpler method but might be less fair, especially if societies have a significant difference in building sizes.
• Each society pays a flat fee, regardless of the number of buildings or total carpet area.
• This might disadvantage societies with fewer buildings or smaller footprints.

• Agreement Details: The specific basis for sharing maintenance charges should be clearly defined in a written agreement signed by all participating societies. This agreement should also outline:
  • Frequency of contribution
  • Dispute resolution mechanism
  • Process for reviewing and adjusting the contribution amount

Benefits of a Clear Agreement:

• A clear agreement promotes transparency and avoids confusion or disputes regarding maintenance charges.
• It ensures fairness by considering the size and amenities utilized by each society.

Alternative to Federation:

• If forming a federation proves challenging, the societies could consider an informal collaboration.
• Each society could still contribute to a common maintenance fund based on a mutually agreed-upon method.

Senior Citizens: Supreme Court clarifies position on reclaiming conditional gift

Senior citizens who are gifting or transferring property to their child or heir on the condition that the transferee provides basic amenities or caters to their physical needs should include an express provision to this effect in the gift or transfer deed. This will help to ensure that the senior citizen is able to reclaim the property if the child or heir fails to comply with the condition.

Supreme Court of India's judgment in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi & Anr clarifies this.

*Main points of the judgment are as follows*:

* Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act allows a senior citizen to reclaim property gifted or transferred to a child or heir if the transferee has failed or refused to provide basic amenities or physical needs to the transferor.

* For section 23(1) to apply, the transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor.

* The existence of such a condition in the transfer deed must be established before the Maintenance Tribunal.

* The transfer deed should include an express provision to the effect that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

* Without an express provision in the transfer deed, senior citizens will be unable to reclaim gifted or transferred property should the child or heir fail to provide amenities or tend to their needs.

This judgment is a significant development as it clarifies the position of senior citizens who are gifting or transferring property to their children or heirs. It is also a reminder to senior citizens to carefully consider the terms of any gift or transfer deed before signing it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MApy02mvNtCRM3F_OHFxxQA5Lo5oW2K6/view

Filling a casual vacancy of a committee member

Filling a casual vacancy of a committee member in a housing cooperative society in Maharashtra is governed by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and its corresponding rules. Below are the steps and relevant provisions you need to follow:

1. Notice of Casual Vacancy: When a casual vacancy arises due to the resignation, death, or disqualification of a committee member, the society should notify the Registrar of Cooperatives and display a notice of the vacancy on the society's notice board.

2. Formation of Sub-Committee: The existing committee can nominate a sub-committee to recommend suitable candidates to fill the vacant position. This sub-committee usually consists of a few committee members and other society members.

3. Eligibility Criteria: The sub-committee should establish the eligibility criteria for candidates who wish to contest the casual vacancy. This may include requirements like minimum membership tenure, no outstanding dues, etc.

4.Inviting Nominations: The sub-committee should invite nominations from eligible society members for the vacant position. A notice inviting nominations should be sent to all members and displayed on the society's notice board.

5. Scrutiny of Nominations: After the nomination period is over, the sub-committee should scrutinize the received nominations to ensure the eligibility of the candidates.

6. Display of List of Candidates: The sub-committee should then display the list of eligible candidates along with their credentials on the society's notice board.

7. Election (if required): If more than one eligible candidate has applied for the vacancy, an election should be conducted among the society members to choose the new committee member. The election should be conducted as per the by-laws of the society and the Cooperative Societies Act.

8. Intimation to Registrar: Once the new committee member is elected or selected, the society should inform the Registrar of Cooperatives about the filling of the casual vacancy and provide necessary details.

9. Co-option (if allowed): In some cases, the society's by-laws might allow the existing committee to co-opt a new member to fill the casual vacancy. This co-option should be done following the procedures outlined in the by-laws and the Cooperative Societies Act.

10. Formal Induction: The newly filled committee member should be formally inducted into the committee, and they should be made aware of their rights, responsibilities, and obligations.

It's important to note that the specific procedures and requirements might vary slightly based on the society's by-laws and the rules laid out by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 

See the Rule 74 of

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 below:

74. Casual vacancies how to be filled in. - In the event of vacancy occurring on account of death, resignation, disqualification or removal of the member of a society or through such a member becoming incapable of acting prior to the expiry of his term of office or otherwise, the Chief Executive officer of the Society shall forthwith communicate the occurrence of such vacancies to the SCEA and the vacancy shall be filled as soon as conveniently, according to the provisions of the Act. The person so elected or co-opted or, as the case may be, nominated shall hold office so long only as the member of the committee in whose place he is elected, is co-opted or, as the case may be, nominated would have held it, if the vacancy had not occurred.

http://www.bareactslive.com/MAH/mh863.htm

The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022

The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022 is a proposed bill that seeks to amend the Competition Act, 2002. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2022, and is currently under consideration.

The bill proposes a number of changes to the Competition Act, including:

• Broadening the scope of anti-competitive agreements: The bill proposes to broaden the scope of anti-competitive agreements by including agreements that are "likely" to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, rather than just agreements that "do" have such an effect. This would make it easier for the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to take action against anti-competitive agreements.
• Regulating mergers and acquisitions based on value of transactions: The bill proposes to regulate mergers and acquisitions based on the value of transactions, rather than just the number of employees or assets involved. This would make it easier for the CCI to assess the impact of mergers and acquisitions on competition.
• Increasing the penalties for competition law violations: The bill proposes to increase the penalties for competition law violations, both for individuals and for companies. This would deter companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
• Introducing a settlement mechanism: The bill proposes to introduce a settlement mechanism, which would allow companies to settle cases with the CCI without going through a full investigation and trial. This would help to reduce the time and cost of resolving competition law cases.
• Strengthening the powers of the CCI: The bill proposes to strengthen the powers of the CCI, including by giving it the power to search and seize documents, and by making it easier for the CCI to obtain information from companies. This would help the CCI to effectively enforce the Competition Act.

The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022 is a significant piece of legislation that could have a major impact on competition in India. The bill is currently under consideration, and it is not yet clear when it will be passed into law. However, the bill is a positive step towards strengthening the competition law framework in India.

Here are some of the key benefits of the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022:

• It will help to promote competition in the Indian economy, which will lead to lower prices and better quality goods and services for consumers.
• It will help to protect small businesses from unfair competition from larger companies.
• It will help to create a more level playing field for businesses, which will encourage investment and innovation.
• It will help to strengthen the rule of law in India.

The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022 is a welcome step towards making India a more competitive and prosperous country. It is important to ensure that the bill is implemented effectively so that it can achieve its full potential.

zero FIR

A zero FIR is an FIR that can be filed in any police station, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the offence, when it receives a complaint regarding a cognizable offence.

The term "zero" refers to the fact that the FIR is not given a serial number, as is the case with regular FIRs. Instead, it is given the number "0" and then transferred to the police station with the appropriate jurisdiction for further investigation.

Zero FIRs were introduced in India after the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, which was set up in the aftermath of the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case. The committee found that victims of sexual assault and other serious crimes were often reluctant to file FIRs because they had to go to the police station where the offence had taken place. This could be inconvenient and intimidating, especially for women and children.

Zero FIRs were designed to make it easier for victims to file complaints and to ensure that they received timely justice. They have been welcomed by many people, but there have also been some concerns about their misuse.

For example, some people have argued that zero FIRs could be used to file false complaints or to harass people. However, the police have said that they have strict procedures in place to prevent the misuse of zero FIRs.

Overall, zero FIRs are a positive step towards making it easier for victims of crime to get justice. However, it is important to be aware of the potential for misuse and to take steps to prevent it.

Here are some of the benefits of zero FIRs:

• They make it easier for victims of crime to file complaints, regardless of where the offence took place.
• They can help to ensure that victims receive timely justice.
• They can help to reduce the stigma associated with reporting crime.

Here are some of the concerns about zero FIRs:

• They could be used to file false complaints or to harass people.
• They could be used to circumvent the jurisdictional rules of the police.
• They could lead to delays in investigation and prosecution.

Overall, zero FIRs are a valuable tool that can help to improve the justice system. However, it is important to be aware of the potential for misuse and to take steps to prevent it.

NMC puts on hold rules for doctors to prescribe only generic medicines and not branded medicines.

L

India's National Medical Commission (NMC) has lifted a ban on doctors prescribing branded medicines, after facing opposition from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Federation of Resident Doctors' Associations.

The NMC had originally issued a regulation in August 2023 requiring doctors to prescribe generic medicines only. The regulation was met with widespread criticism from doctors and pharmaceutical companies, who argued that it would restrict patient choice and harm the quality of healthcare.

IMA president Dr. Rajan Sharma welcomed the decision to lift the ban, saying it was "a victory for patient rights." He added that the NMC should focus on improving the quality of medical education and training, rather than trying to micromanage doctors' prescribing practices.

The NMC has said that it will continue to promote the use of generic medicines, but that doctors will now be allowed to prescribe branded medicines if they believe they are in the best interests of their patients.

The decision to lift the ban is a setback for the NMC's efforts to reduce the cost of healthcare in India. Generic medicines are typically much cheaper than branded medicines, and their use could help to make healthcare more affordable for millions of Indians.

However, the decision is likely to be welcomed by doctors and pharmaceutical companies, who have long argued that the NMC's generic medicine regulation was too restrictive.

Today, doctors are under the influence of the branded medicine lobby and both the doctors and  branded medicine lobby are guided by promoting their profit to the maximum level. They are not concerned to to make healthcare more affordable for millions of Indians.

It is clear that branded pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in promoting their products. They spend billions of dollars on marketing and advertising, and they often target doctors with gifts, trips, and other incentives.

In these situation, most of the doctors  have simply become puppets of the pharmaceutical industry.

Supreme Court of India judgments on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)

The Supreme Court of India has passed several landmark judgments on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), which deals with the offence of cheque bounce. Some of the most important judgments are:

• Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2003): This judgment held that upon a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act being issued, a subsequent presentation of a cheque and its dishonour would not create another 'cause of action' which could set the Section 138 machinery in motion.

• Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2005): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to an act of the payee, such as giving a wrong payee's name or refusing to return the cheque.

• M.P.P. Ltd. vs. Medchil Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. (2001): This judgment held that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a compoundable offence, meaning that the parties can mutually agree to settle the matter without going to court.

• State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Chand Jain (2012): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a technical defect, such as a spelling mistake in the payee's name.

• Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2022): This judgment held that a cheque is only considered to be dishonoured if it on the day of its maturity or presentation, "represents a legally enforceable debt."

The latest Supreme Court of India judgments on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are:

• In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881 (2022): This judgment directed all High Courts to ensure that cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months.

• Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a technical defect, such as a spelling mistake in the payee's name. However, the Court also held that the drawer can be held liable if the payee has waived the defect.

• Ravikant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2022): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a forgery committed by the payee.

These are just some of the latest judgments that have been passed by the Supreme Court on Section 138 of the NI Act. These judgments continue to clarify the law and ensure that it is applied fairly and consistently.

In addition to these judgments, the Supreme Court has also issued several other important rulings on cheque bounce cases in recent years. For example, in the case of Gajanand Burange vs. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Court held that a company can be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act even if the cheque was issued by an individual director on behalf of the company.

The Supreme Court's judgments on cheque bounce cases are constantly evolving, as the Court seeks to balance the interests of creditors and debtors. These judgments are an important source of guidance for lawyers and judges who deal with these cases.

In addition to these landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has also issued several other important rulings on cheque bounce cases. For example, in the case of Ravikant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019), the Court held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a forgery committed by the payee.

The Supreme Court's judgments on cheque bounce cases have had a significant impact on the law and practice in this area. They have helped to protect the interests of honest creditors and ensure that unscrupulous debtors are held accountable for their actions.

Sources

info

1. www.pathlegal.in/-Top-5-Judgments-on-Negotiable-Instrument-Act-blog-1294920

2. www.soolegal.com/roar/15-landmark-judgment-on-section-138-negotiable-instrument-3

3. vakilsearch.com/blog/dishonor-of-cheque/

 

The Lok Sabha Bill's Guest Cap Proposal

The Lok Sabha Bill's Guest Cap Proposal is a private member's bill introduced by Congress MP Jasbir Singh Gill in January 2020. The bill seeks to prevent "wasteful expenditure" on social occasions such as weddings and festivals. It proposes to limit the number of wedding guests to 100 from both bride and groom's families, the number of dishes served to 10, and the value of gifts to the newlyweds to Rs. 2,500.

The bill also encourages people to make donations to NGOs or the weaker sections of society instead of spending money on extravagant weddings. Gill has said that the bill is aimed at reducing female feticide, as a girl child would not be seen as a burden if the cost of weddings is brought down.

The bill has been met with mixed reactions. Some people have welcomed it as a way to curb the increasing costs of weddings, while others have criticized it as being too intrusive and impractical. It is still to be seen whether the bill will be passed by Parliament.

Here are some of the pros and cons of the Lok Sabha Bill's Guest Cap Proposal:

Pros:

• It could help to reduce the cost of weddings, which can be a major financial burden for families.

• It could discourage the practice of female feticide, as parents would be less likely to abort a female child if they did not have to worry about the cost of her wedding.

• It could promote social harmony, as people from different social groups would be able to attend weddings regardless of their financial status.

Cons:

• It could be seen as an infringement on individual freedom, as people should be free to spend their money as they see fit.

• It could be difficult to enforce, as there is no way to prevent people from inviting more guests than the limit.

• It could lead to social exclusion, as people from lower-income groups may not be able to afford to host weddings that meet the requirements of the bill.

Overall, the Lok Sabha Bill's Guest Cap Proposal is a controversial one. It has the potential to both positive and negative impacts on society. 

Amendment to The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 is a legislation that regulates the manufacture, sale, import, and export of drugs and cosmetics in India. Section 27 D of the Act was amended in 2022 to decriminalize the manufacture and sale of drugs that do not meet the standards.

This means that people will no longer be prosecuted for manufacturing or selling drugs that are substandard, ineffective, or harmful.

This amendment exempts pharmaceutical companies from facing criminal cases for manufacturing low-quality medicines. The amendment replaces imprisonment of up to two years with a mere fine for the owners and managers of pharmaceutical companies.

This amendment has faced strong opposition from doctors, healthcare workers, and other professionals due to the potential risks to patients' health and lives, considering the production of substandard medicines.

The government clarified that Sections 27(a), (b), and (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 have not been amended. Cases involving counterfeit and spurious drugs will still face legal action, including imprisonment and fines.

The debate revolves around what defines substandard quality or "Not of Standard Quality" (NSQ) medicines. The government and the pharmaceutical lobby argue that NSQ medicines only have slightly lower quality than legally mandated minimum standards and don't pose significant health risks.

However, there are concerns that NSQ medicines can still harm patients' health and well-being, and this amendment lets pharmaceutical companies off the hook.

Instances of substandard and adulterated medicines have been reported in India recently, highlighting the need for stringent quality control and regulations.

The government's move to ease penalties for pharmaceutical companies has been criticized for prioritizing financial interests over public health.

There have been cases where substandard drugs have caused harm or even death, highlighting the dire need for quality control and accountability.

The government's approach is seen as prioritizing profit over public health, and there's a call for strict monitoring and regulations on the pharmaceutical industry.

The focus should be on assessing the impact of substandard medicines on public health and considering alternate solutions rather than giving pharmaceutical companies immunity from legal actions.

Critics argue that the government's policies and amendments favor corporate interests over the well-being of the citizens, highlighting a broader pattern of anti-people policies.