V.K Singh Advocates & Legal Consultants

03/02/2025

With gratitude, I share the news of my success in the Supreme Court Of India Advocate On Record Examination, which was made possible by the blessings of my parents and Lord Krishna.

01/02/2023

Latest Anticipatory bail order

Bail Application No. 1958/2022
& Bail Application No. 1959/2022
FIR No. 690/2022
Under Sec. 420/34 IPC
PS New Ashok Nagar
State Vs. Sonu Lamba
& Monu Lamba
30.01.2023
Present bail applications have been put up before the
undersigned pursuance to the order No. 10198-10209/Pr.D& SJ
(East)/KKD/Delhi, dated 23.12.2022 passed by ld. Principal District
& Sessions Judge (East), KKD, Delhi.
Vide this common order, both above mentioned bail
applications will be disposed of as the issue in question is one and
same.
Present: Sh. Janmejay Pratap Singh, ld. proxy counsels (D11730/2022, mobile no. 8585931494 Official Add. A84, Defence Colony, New Dlehi e-maiol ID
[email protected]) for the applicant/
accused.
Sh. S.K. Tripathi, ld. Addl. PP for the State with ASI
Ashok, IO.
Sh. Arun Kumar, ld. counsel for the complainant.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Present FIR under Section 420/34 IPC has been registered
on the complaint of Alok Yadav that he was cheated at the hands of
accused persons who lured him to get the vehicle before time and for
the same payment made to the accused persons.
On the last date of hearing, IO was directed asIO is directed to verify the factum
whether any amount has been transferred from
the account of applicant/accused in the account
of Ozone Carz and further IO is directed to
verify whether any amount has been received by
the applicant/accused from the account of
Ozone Carz. IO is further directed to verify the
accounts of Ozone Carz whether any amount
has been transferred to the account of the
applicant /accused and if so, under which head
and file Status Report by NDOH.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicants/accused persons
contd../2/.../2/..
that admittedly applicants/accused have been granted interim
protection and they have joined the investigations of this case. It is
also submitted that neither of them misused the said liberty and as
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of either of these
accused persons, there is prayer for anticipatory bail to these
applicant/accused persons. It is also submitted that applicants/accused
are ready to abide with the term(s) and condition(s), if any imposed
while granting bail to them.
Per contra, ld. Addl. P.P. opposed the present applications
stating that allegations against the accused persons are serious in
nature.
Rival submissions considered and record also perused.
During the course of arguments and on raising query by
court, IO submits that amount has been credited only in the account of
company and no amount has been credited in account of either of
these applicants/accused by company. Thus from the averment made
by the IO, it seems that accused persons have transferred the amount
in the name of the company and till date no amount has been credited
in account of neither of these accused persons.
Applicants/accused have been granted interim protection
and there is no report that either of them misused the said liberty. No
custodial interrogation is required.
Considering the overall circumstances, SHO P.S. New
Ashok Nagar/IO of the case are directed that in the event of arrest,
both these accused persons/applicants namely Sonu Lamba and Monu
Lamba be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs. 35, 000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the IO/SHO of the P.S. concerned subject to the
following conditions:-
1. That they shall join investigation as and when required by the
contd../3/.../3/..
IO/SHO;
2. that they shall furnish the active mobile number to the IO ;
3. that they shall furnish photocopy of their Aadhar Card or any
other Govt. document to that effect;
4. that they shall furnish PAN card details along with their income
tax ward;
5. that they shall give an undertaking to the IO that they will
notify to him immediately in case of change of their residential
address and/ or mobile number;
6. that they shall surrender the passport, if any, to the IO within a
week; and
7. that the compliance as per Annexure B of Crl. Misc No.
5328/2013 & Crl. M.C. No. 4438/2013 of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi (order dated 28.06.2021) be also made.
It is made clear that any observation made herein shall
have no bearing on the merits of the case. As prayed, a copy of this
order be given dasti to ld. counsel for the applicants/ accused persons
and IO concerned.

This anticipatory bail application was filed by criminal lawyer Varun Singh practicing advocate in Supreme Court/ Delhi High Court

Mr V.K SINGH started his career as a legal advisor with DLF and has vast exposure in corporate law. He has intense experience in handling corporate and civil li

01/02/2023

In cases where there is no written agreement, only oral agreement exists commercial suit can’t be filed. Even if a commercial suit is filed based on an oral agreement, it should be dismissed

Written agreements are any form of agreements, which are reduced to writing, in a particular format. It is the set of promises and terms of an agreement, reduced on paper, in simple composition of text, and is express in nature. Valid written agreements have a greater evidentiary value in the court of law, since it is easier to peruse and understand. It also has easier and greater enforceability in the court of law.

On the other hand, oral agreements consist of expressed or implied words, gestures, symbols by which one party conveys a promise or a set of promises to another, which on acceptance by the other party, becomes a valid oral agreement. Valid oral agreements are legally enforceable in the court of law. However, it is not of great evidentiary value as the agreement is understood through the word of mouth and obtained via second hand knowledge. In case of a commercial suit, it is a difficult task for the court to ascertain the true nature of facts and terms of the agreement, without the invasion of bias. A valid oral agreement is of value and can be enforced in the court of law. However, it is always difficult to prove the existence or the exact terms of the agreement.

To understand let’s analyse the Calcutta High Court case of Prime Hitech Textiles LLP vs. Manish Kumar(2022), 1 the defendant had filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff did not fall within the definition of commercial disputes as envisaged under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The counsel for the defendant had submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of an oral agreement, no document was executed. The plaintiff also did not file any memorandum of understanding to establish whether the transaction is for any commercial business.

The plaintiff was engaged in business of textile and also investing in textiles related business and the defendant was a trader in the textile goods of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had made out a case that in early 2018, the defendant had approached the plaintiff at its office and requested for temporary loan and/or advance to meet the defendant immediate finance requirement.2

In none of the paragraphs of the plaint it was ever stated that the defendant borrowed the loan from the plaintiff for the purpose of textiles business or for the purpose of his business. The documents which the plaintiff relied upon i.e., the letters dt. 05.06.2018 and 06.08.20183 only revealed that the plaintiff had paid the amount and the defendant had received the amount but in none of the documents there was any mention about the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant being in connection with in the business of textiles and/or any kind of business. This was sufficient proof to state that the suit is not based on any transaction relating to mercantile documents and the suit was found to have been wrongly filed as a commercial suit.4

Therefore, the court was of the view that the suit cannot be dealt by the commercial court as it was a suit for recovery of money which cannot fall under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercials Courts Act, 2015.

In case of 2022 Delhi High Court judgment, Sudharshan Dhoop Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. and Ors5, the entire suit of the plaintiff was based on various cheques issued by the plaintiff to Defendant (Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2) since there was only oral agreement.

A defence was set up by Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiff Company is owned, managed and controlled by Ms. J. Kesari and her husband who are the daughter and son-in-law of Shri R.P. Mittal, (defendant No. 2) ex-Managing Director of the defendant no. 1 Company. At the relevant time, the daughters of Sh. R.P. Mittal, were appointed as Vice president of Plaintiff Company. They all devised a mechanism to defraud the defendant no. 1 Company and defendant no. 2 took out the money from the account of the defendant Company.6

The entire claim of the plaintiff was based on oral understanding which later on was found to be nothing but a fraud.7 It manifested from the facts that the written agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 Company were not brought on record to show under what arrangement the loan was allegedly given to defendant no. 1 Company.8

In addition, there was no correspondence wherein the Defendant no. 1 Company had clearly and categorically asked for alleged loan or had acknowledged the alleged loan amount. The basis on which higher interest rate of 12% p.a. is being claimed was also not being explained.9 Court held that if issue of fraud and limitation is established by way of evidence, since there is only alleged claims and no written agreement to prove the above-mentioned points, suit of plaintiff is without merit and would have to be necessarily dismissed.

Mr V.K SINGH started his career as a legal advisor with DLF and has vast exposure in corporate law. He has intense experience in handling corporate and civil li

01/02/2023

Budget 2023

Key points

· FY-2024 fiscal deficit target at 5.9% of GDP

· Outlay for capital spending increased 33% to 10 trillion rupees in 2023/24

· Ci******es to get costlier as Budget proposes 16% hike in duty

· To set up agriculture accelerator fund

· Increases budget allocations to 790 bln rupees for affordable housing in 2023/24

· Finance Minister says increase in public capex key to crowding in private investments

· Indian economy has become the fifth-largest economy in the world in last nine years

· Budget adopts seven priorities including inclusive, green growth

· Agricultural credit target raised to 20 trillion rupees ($244.42 billion) for 2023/24

· Sitharaman says the economy is growing the fastest among major economies

Highlights of Union Budget 2023-24.

General

1. EPFO Numbers doubled to 27 crores

2. Agriculture accelerator fund to boost startup in Agri sector. Special scheme to boost fisheries

3. 38, 800 teachers will be employed in 3.5 lakh Eklavya tribal school.

4. Capital outlay of Rs. 2.40 lakh crore for Railways.

5. 50 New Airports and Heliports to be made.

6. Rs. 10, 000 crore for urban infra fund every year

7. Rs. 75, 000 crore for 100 transport infra projects

8. 3 Centers of Excellence for “Artificial Intelligence” will be set up.

9. KYC procedure to be simplified. PAN to be come common business identifier.

10. Scope of Digi locker to be increased.

11. More than 39, 000 compliances reduced. Jan Vishwas Bill to amend 42 laws

12. Rs. 35, 000 crore for Energy transmission

13. 10, 000 bio input research centers to be set up.

14. 30 Skill India International centers to be set up.

15. NFIR (National Financial Information Registry) to be launched for financial strategy.

16. Reducing cost of MSME Credit by 1%. Infusion of Rs. 9, 000 crore in corpus for MSME credit.

17. ‘Mahila Samman Bachat Scheme’ for Women for Rs. 2, 00, 000 @ 7.5%

18. SCSS enhanced from 15 lakh to 30 Lakh.

Direct and Indirect tax

1. Promote domestic manufacturing and exports.

2. Tax exemption on Capital Goods and Lithium batteries.

3. Mobiles, camera lenses to become cheaper.

4. Gold, Silver & Diamonds, ci******es, imported rubber to get expensive.

5. Enhanced limit for 3 crore and 75 lakhs for presumptive taxation.

6. Higher TDS limit of RS. 3 cr for Cooperatives

7. New IT Return Form for easier filing.

8. 100 Joint Commissioners to be appointed for disposal of small appeals.

9. TDS reduced on EPF withdrawal

10. Section 54 and 54F to be amended.

11. Rebate limit increased to 7 lakh in new tax regime.

12. Number of slabs reduced from 7 to 5 in new tax regime.

13. Only 5% tax on Individual’s Annual income of 9, 00, 000 only to pay Rs. 45, 000 as tax.

14. Salaried class and pensioner: Standard Deduction increased

15. Highest tax rate 42.74 % reduced

16. Propose to reduced Higher surcharge rate from 37 % to 25% in new tax regime.

17. Leave Encashment: Limit increased from Rs. 3, 00, 000 to Rs. 25, 00, 000.

FM Nirmala Sitharaman also outlined seven priorities for the 'first Budget in Amrit Kaal'

1. Inclusive development

2. Reaching the last mile

3. Infra & investment

4. Unleashing the potential

5. Green growth

6. Youth power

7. Financial sector

Part B of Honourable Finance Minister speech in Budget 2023

Indirect Taxes

1. Customs duty on goods of textiles, toys, bicycle reduced from 21 to 13%

2. To promote Green Mobility - basic customs duty concession for lithium ion battery

3. To promote Electronics manufacture- relief on customs duty for camera lens and lithium battery

4. Television - TV panels customs duty reduced

5. Electric kitchen chimney to reduce inverted duty structure from 7.5 to 15 percent

6. Benefit for ethanol blending program and acid program and epichlorohydrine

7 Marine Products- to promote exports - shrimps, etc. Duty on shrimpfeed reduced

8. Basic Customs duty reduced for seeds in manufacture for diamonds

9. Customs duty to increase in silver bars

10. Steel - concessional customs duty on steel and ferrous products

11. Copper - concessional customs duty on copper

12. Rubber - concessional customs duty on rubber

13. Ci******es - increased tax

Direct Taxes

1. Common IT form and grievance redressal system

2. MSME - avail benefit of presumptive taxation increased to 44AD to 3 crores

Professionals u/s 44ADA - 75 lakhs

Provided receipt in cash doesn't exceed 5%

3. TDS only on payment for deduction

4. Co-operatives tax -15%

Higher limit of 2 lakh per member for cash deposit in agricultural banks

Higher limit of Rs. 3 crores on TDS for cooperative societies

5. Startups: To avail startup benefits from 31-03-2023 to 31-03-2024

6. 100 new joint commissioners for appeal

7. S.54 to S.54F capped at 10 crores

8. TDS on Online gaming -

9. TDS 30% to 20% on taxable portion of EPF

10. Extending funds for GIFT and IFSC

Personal Income Tax

1. Rebate for income upto 7 lakhs u/s 87A in the new tax regime

2. New tax regime from

0-3 lakhs : nil

3-6 lakhs : 5%

6-9 lakhs : 10%

9-12 lakhs : 15%

12-15 lakhs : 20%

Above 15 lakhs: 30 %

3. Standard deduction for new tax regime for Rs. 15.5 lakhs or more -52, 500

4. Reduction of highest surcharge from 37% to 25% on new income tax regime

5. Limit on tax exemption for leave encashment is increased from 3, 00, 000 to 25, 00, 000

6. New income tax regime default regime

Mr V.K SINGH started his career as a legal advisor with DLF and has vast exposure in corporate law. He has intense experience in handling corporate and civil li

24/01/2023

Advocate Varun Singh filed review petition in Supreme court in Chhawla Gang r**e and Murder case

Mr V.K SINGH started his career as a legal advisor with DLF and has vast exposure in corporate law. He has intense experience in handling corporate and civil li

22/12/2022

Singh law Associates situated in Defence Colony New Delhi .

22/12/2022

We filed a Review petition in supreme court in Chhawla gang r**e and murder case culprits must be hanged till death.
Fight for justice for the young girl who was brutally r**ed and murdered.. For more info visit us at http://www.singhlawassociates.com/latest-update/we-filed-a-review-pe/4?utm_source=facebookpage

22/12/2022

Forfeiture of Earnest Money by the developer
• RERA 2016 –
Section 13 of the RERA 2016 says -
13. No deposit or advance to be taken by promoter without first entering into agreement for sale. —
(1) A promoter shall not accept a sum more than ten per cent. of the cost of the apartment, plot, or building as the case may be, as an advance payment or an application fee, from a person without first entering into a written agreement for sale with such person and register the said agreement for sale, under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The agreement for sale referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall specify the particulars of development of the project including the construction of building and apartments, along with specifications and internal development works and external development works, the dates and the manner by which payments towards the cost of the apartment, plot, or building, as the case may be, are to be made by the allottees and the date on which the possession of the apartment, plot or building is to be handed over, the rates of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee and the allottee to the promoter in case of default, and such other particulars, as may be prescribed .
• Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 -
7.5 Cancellation by Allottee – The Allottee shall have the right to cancel/ withdraw his allotment in the Project as provided in the Act: Provided that where the allottee proposes to cancel/ withdraw from the project without any fault of the promoter, the promoter herein is entitled to forfeit the booking amount paid for the allotment and interest component on delayed payment (payable by the customer for breach of agreement and non-payment of any due payable to the promoter). The rate of interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two percent. The balance amount of money paid by the allottee shall be returned by the promoter to the allottee within ninety days of such cancellation.
Case law -
Mr. Hari Ballabh Sharma. V. M/s. Pareena Infrastructure P. Ltd .
• M/s DLF V/s Bhagwati Narula dated 6.1.2015 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.3860 of 2014.
It would thus be seen that only a reasonable amount can be forfeited as earnest money in the event of default on the part of the purchaser and it is not permissible in law to forfeit any amount beyond a reasonable amount, unless it is shown that the person forfeiting the said amount had actually suffered loss to the extent of the amount forfeited by him. In our opinion, 20% of the sale price cannot be said to be a reasonable amount which the Petitioner Company could have forfeited on account of default on the part of the complainant unless it can show it had only suffered loss to the extent the amount was forfeited by it. In our opinion, in absence of evidence of actual loss, forfeiture of any amount exceeding 10% of the sale price cannot be said to be a reasonable amount.
A similar view has been taken in the following cases which are re-produced below:- In Maula Bux V/s Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quoted the following observations made by the judicial committee in Kunwar Chiranjit Singh V/s Har Swarup: “that earnest money is part of the purchase price when the transaction goes forward; it is forfeited when the transaction falls through, by reason of the fault or failure of the vendee. Further, contracts with unjust and one-sided clauses can also held to be unconscionable contract.”
• However, in the case of Rajiv Bhargava vs DLF it was ruled that no person can be allowed to forfeit an amount for which he had neither entered into a contract nor has provided any service and nor has the consumer availed any service for has illegally forfeited earnest money.
• Furthermore, in the case of Nafe Singh vs. Sanjay Gupta, RFA No. 1036 of 2018, it was said that -
4. The trial court has considered the facts of the present case and has thereafter applied the settled legal position as laid down way back in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fateh Chand v. Bal Kishan Das, AIR 1963 SC 1405 and as followed in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Another, (2015) 4 SCC 136, as also in the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of M.C. Luthra v. Ashok Kumar Khanna in RFA No.780/2017 decided on 27.02.2018, 248 (2018) DLT 161: 2018 (169) DRJ 418, is that a seller under an agreement to sell cannot forfeit the amount received under the agreement to sell unless loss is pleaded and proved to have been caused to the seller on account of the breach of contract by the buyer.

Best RERA Lawyer in Delhi.
Top Law firm in Delhi.
Best Advocate in Delhi.. For more info visit us at http://www.singhlawassociates.com/latest-update/das/3?utm_source=facebookpage

12/11/2022

FIGHT FOR JUSTICE - CHAWLA R**E AND MURDER CASE

Chhawla Case: SC के फैसले के बाद जनता में गुस्सा, नेगी परिवार दाखिल करेगी पूर्ण विचार याचिका **ecase News24 motto of 'Think F...

19/08/2020

CBI probe ordered in Sushant Singh rajput case, FIR registered by Bihar police is in accordance with law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Bihar Government's order to transfer the probe in the case related to the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput to CBI.A single bench of Justice...

15/08/2020