Understanding Counter-Claims under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

• The rules governing a defendant’s written statement shall equally apply to a plaintiff’s reply to a counter-claim.

---

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently elaborated on the scope of counter-claims under CPC:

1. Nature of Counter-Claim – It is not an amendment of the written statement but an independent proceeding in the nature of a cross-suit. (AIR 1964 SC 11)
2. Scope and Maintainability – A counter-claim may arise out of the same cause of action or a distinct one, and can even pertain to a different property, as long as it asserts a legally enforceable right against the plaintiff. (AIR 1996 SC 2222)
3. Stage of Filing – A counter-claim need not be filed simultaneously with the written statement. It may be filed later, but not after the framing of issues or closing of evidence. ((2006) 12 SCC 734))

---

Practical Significance

• Comprehensive Adjudication: The counter-claim allows all disputes between the plaintiff and defendant to be decided in one suit, saving time and costs.
• Independence: Once filed, the counter-claim stands on its own and survives even if the plaintiff withdraws the original suit.
• Court Fees: Since a counter-claim is treated as a plaint, it must be duly valued and appropriate court fee affixed, subject to the provisions of the Court Fees Act.
• Avoids Multiplicity: Counter-claims reduce the possibility of parallel litigations by consolidating rights and disputes in the same proceeding.

---

Conclusion

The framework of counter-claims under CPC demonstrates the balance between plaintiff and defendant rights. By allowing the defendant to pursue an independent claim within the same suit, the law ensures a holistic adjudication of disputes. However, procedural compliance—especially with respect to timing, valuation, and court fees—is crucial. Courts have made it clear that counter-claims cannot be treated casually; they must be filed within proper stages of the proceedings and carry the same weight as an independent plaint.

The Unseen Battle: Why Indian Businessmen Are Losing Faith in the Income Tax System

For India's business community, navigating the complex world of taxation is a formidable task. While the government has made strides toward simplification and digitization, the relationship between taxpayers and the Income Tax authorities is often fraught with friction. What should be a straightforward process of compliance can quickly escalate into a harrowing ordeal, largely due to systemic issues and the seemingly unchecked power of the tax bureaucracy.

The Vexing Web of Complex Laws and Frequent Changes

One of the most significant problems is the sheer complexity of the Indian tax system. It is a multi-layered structure with various taxes, frequent amendments, and new regulations. Staying updated requires constant vigilance and often, the expensive help of tax professionals. For small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) with limited resources, this is a particularly heavy burden. A lack of clarity in certain provisions can lead to different interpretations, which often culminates in time-consuming and costly disputes and litigation.

This ambiguity, combined with an ever-changing legal landscape, creates an environment where honest mistakes can be misconstrued as intentional evasion. For example, the distinction between a businessman's genuine negligence and deliberate tax fraud can be blurry. While tax evasion is a criminal offense, a simple accounting error or a misclassification of expenses can attract hefty penalties and prolonged harassment.

The Administrative Burden and Procedural Delays

The administrative machinery of the Income Tax Department can be slow and cumbersome. The processes for filing returns, claiming refunds, and responding to official notices are often lengthy and complicated. Businesses are required to maintain meticulous documentation, and any procedural delay or minor error can result in stiff penalties and interest charges.

For a businessman, especially a startup founder, every hour spent on administrative tasks is an hour lost from growing their business. When faced with show-cause notices, audits, or inspections, entrepreneurs are forced to divert their focus and resources from core business activities to deal with the demands of the tax authorities. This administrative red tape acts as a major deterrent and stifles the entrepreneurial spirit.

Aggressive Prosecution and Punitive Actions

In a troubling trend, the Income Tax Department has been criticized for adopting an aggressive approach to prosecution. There have been instances where the department has initiated criminal proceedings against individuals and businesses even before the matter of a tax dispute has been resolved by appellate bodies like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This pre-emptive and punitive action puts immense pressure on businessmen and forces them into a defensive position.

The Supreme Court has taken note of this negligence, with instances of it imposing costs on the department for filing belated or misleading petitions. Such rulings highlight a larger issue: a lack of accountability within the tax bureaucracy. Officials often take actions that may be perceived as arbitrary or excessively zealous, safe in the knowledge that any legal challenge will be a long and arduous process for the taxpayer. This culture of aggression and a lack of accountability creates an environment of fear and uncertainty, discouraging legitimate business activity.

The problems faced by businessmen are not just about paying taxes; they are about dealing with an unpredictable and often unfair system. While the government's push towards faceless assessments is a step in the right direction, the underlying issues of legal ambiguity, administrative overreach, and a punitive mindset must be addressed to foster a truly business-friendly environment in India.

Delhi & Haryana's Latest Move: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Blow to the Common Man?

The National Capital Region (NCR), including Delhi and parts of Haryana, is once again at the forefront of a contentious environmental policy. Effective July 1, 2025, a new directive mandates that "end-of-life" vehicles – specifically diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years (which would primarily encompass BS4 and older emission standards) – will no longer be allowed to refuel. To enforce this, petrol pumps are being equipped with advanced sensors and CCTV cameras to identify and deny fuel to non-compliant vehicles.

While the stated aim is to curb alarming levels of air pollution, this policy has ignited a fierce debate, raising critical questions about its legal standing, practical implementation, environmental efficacy, and perhaps most importantly, its significant impact on the economy and the pockets of ordinary citizens.

The Legal Landscape: A Stance Rooted in Precedent

This latest move isn't entirely new territory for the judiciary. The ban on older vehicles in Delhi-NCR finds its roots in directives from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and subsequent reinforcement by the Supreme Court. As early as 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the NGT's ruling to prohibit diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years from plying in Delhi. The current policy is essentially an enforcement mechanism to actualize these existing judicial orders.

The courts have consistently emphasized public health and the right to clean air, often prioritizing environmental concerns over individual vehicle ownership rights. This gives the government's current policy a strong legal backing, as it aligns with previous judicial pronouncements aimed at combating severe air pollution.

Implementation Woes and Arbitrary Concerns: More Questions Than Answers?

While legally supported, the implementation of this policy raises several eyebrows:

 * "End-of-Life" Definition: The blanket age-based definition of "end-of-life" is a major point of contention. A well-maintained 10-year-old diesel car could potentially be less polluting than a poorly maintained newer vehicle. This age-based ban fails to account for actual emission levels, which could be scientifically determined through rigorous PUC (Pollution Under Control) checks.

 * Sensor Reliability: The reliance on sensors and ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras at petrol pumps for real-time identification of non-compliant vehicles needs to be foolproof. Any errors could lead to unnecessary harassment for vehicle owners.

 * Lack of Scrappage Incentives: A critical missing piece is a robust and attractive vehicle scrappage policy. Without adequate incentives, owners are left with valuable assets suddenly deemed worthless, forcing them into a difficult financial corner.

 * Pan-NCR Uniformity: While the policy targets Delhi and parts of Haryana, the interconnectedness of the NCR means a patchwork implementation can create confusion and loopholes, with vehicles simply crossing borders to refuel.

Economic Ripples: A Hole in the Pockets of Voters

The economic ramifications of this policy are substantial and immediate, particularly for the middle class and small businesses:

 * Sudden Depreciation of Assets: Millions of vehicle owners, who paid road tax for 15 years (even for diesel vehicles that are now banned at 10 years), find their significant investments rendered valueless overnight. This is a direct financial hit for families who often rely on their vehicles for daily commute, livelihoods, or essential services.

 * Forced New Vehicle Purchases: The policy is expected to drive a surge in demand for new vehicles, providing a boost to the automobile industry and government tax revenues. However, for many, purchasing a new car is a significant financial burden, often requiring loans and stretching household budgets.

 * Impact on Livelihoods: Small traders, delivery drivers, and service providers who depend on their older vehicles for their livelihood are disproportionately affected. Without a viable alternative, many face the prospect of unemployment or significant disruption to their businesses.

 * Exacerbating Economic Stress: In an economy still grappling with various challenges, such a broad-brush policy adds another layer of financial stress on the populace, creating discontent and frustration among voters.

Environmental Efficacy: A Band-Aid on a Deeper Wound?

While the intent is clear – to reduce air pollution – questions linger about the actual environmental impact and whether this policy addresses the root causes:

 * Vehicular vs. Other Pollutants: While vehicular emissions are a significant contributor to air pollution, they are not the sole factor. Industrial emissions, construction dust, road dust, and stubble burning also play a major role. A holistic approach addressing all sources is crucial for sustainable improvement.

 * Focus on Age, Not Emission: The arbitrary age cut-off might not always align with actual pollution levels. A well-maintained older vehicle might pollute less than a poorly maintained newer one. A more effective approach could involve stringent emission testing and enforcement, penalizing genuinely polluting vehicles regardless of age.

 * Shifting the Problem: Banning older vehicles from Delhi-NCR might simply shift the problem to other regions if these vehicles are sold off and continue to ply elsewhere, negating the overall environmental benefit.

A Call for Balance and Compassion

There is no denying the urgent need to combat air pollution in Delhi and Haryana. However, a policy that significantly impacts millions of citizens, particularly the economically vulnerable, demands a more nuanced and compassionate approach.

Instead of arbitrary age-based bans, the government should explore:

 * Robust Scrappage Policies with Fair Compensation: Offering attractive incentives for owners to scrap their older vehicles, possibly with subsidies for purchasing newer, compliant vehicles or electric alternatives.

 * Strengthened Emission Testing: Implementing strict and transparent PUC norms across all vehicles, irrespective of age, with severe penalties for non-compliance.

 * Investment in Public Transport: A truly effective solution lies in drastically improving and expanding public transportation infrastructure, making it a viable and attractive alternative to private vehicles.

 * Addressing Other Pollution Sources: A sustained and comprehensive effort to tackle industrial emissions, construction dust, and agricultural burning is equally vital.

The new fuel ban in Delhi and parts of Haryana, while legally defensible on environmental grounds, presents a complex challenge. It's a stark reminder that policies, even those with noble intentions, must be carefully crafted to consider their broader societal and economic implications, ensuring that the burden of environmental responsibility doesn't disproportionately fall on the shoulders of the common citizen. The "hole in the pockets of voters" might just be too deep to ignore.

Dismiss in Default a Boon under Civil Suit Proceedings

Once the suit gets dismissed for default the remedy plaintiff has is to file a restoration application of the suit for setting aside dismissal under Order 9 Rule 9, showing sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing. Apart from this he can also file an appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(c) of CPC. On certain occasions an interesting situation arises if this restoration application also gets dismissed for default meaning that applicant/plaintiff remained absent when the application under O. 9 R. 9 was called on for hearing, then what is the remedy available with the applicant petitioner/plaintiff. Through the present article author tried to discuss the remedies applicant/plaintiff have in such a situation.

Constitution

Parliament’s power to

amend the Constitution of

India

by Esha Jain

Practically every Constitution has some

formal method of constitutional

amendment. This method consists in

changing the language of the

constitutional provisions so as to adopt

them to the changed context of the

social needs. In some countries, the

process may be easier than in others,

and accordingly, the Constitutions are

sometimes classified into flexible or

rigid. In a rigid Constitution, the

process of amending the Constitution is

more elaborate and difficult than the

enactment of ordinary laws.

In a flexible Constitution, the

amendment may be affected rather

easily. The best example of such a

Constitution is the English Constitution,

which may be amended by passing an

ordinary Act of Parliament and there is

no distinction between ordinary

legislation and constituent legislation. A

federal Constitution is usually of a rigid

type, for it seeks to achieve a balance

between the Centre and the States.

In India, the most important process to

modify and adopt the text of the Indian

Constitution is contained in Article 368.

For the purpose of amendment, various

Articles of the Constitution are divided

into three categories:

(1) Amendment by simple majority:

Amendments contemplated in Articles

5, 6, and 239-A, can be made by simple

majority. These Articles are specifically

excluded from the purview of the

procedure prescribed in Article 368.

(2) Amendment by special majority:

Articles which can be amended by

special majority are laid down in Article

368. All constitutional amendments,

other than those referred to as above,

come within this category and must be

effected by a majority of the total

membership of each House of the

Parliament, as well as by a majority of

not less than two-thirds of the

members of that House present and

voting.

(3) By special majority and

Ratification by States:

Articles which require in addition to the

special majority and ratification by not

less than one-half of the State

Legislatures come under this category.

These are fundamental matters where

States have important power under the

Constitution and any unilateral

amendment by Parliament may vitally

affect the fundamental basis of the

system built up by the Constitution.

This class of articles consists of

amendments which seek to make any

change in the provisions mentioned in

Article 368. The following provisions

require such ratification by States:

(1) Election of President—Articles 54

and 55.

(2) Extent of Executive power of the

Union and States—Articles 73 and 162.

(3) Articles dealing with Judiciary—

Supreme Court and the High Court’s—

Articles 124 to 147 and 214 to 231, and

241.

(4) Distribution of legislative powers

between the Centre and the States.

(5) Any of the Lists of VII Schedule.

(6) Representation of States in

Parliament IV Schedule.

(7) Article 368 itself.

Procedure for Amendment under

Article 368:

A Bill to amend the Constitution may

be introduced in either House of

Parliament. It must be passed by each

House by a majority of not less than

two-thirds members of total

membership of that House present and

voting. When a Bill is passed by both

Houses, it is presented to the President

for his assent, who shall give his assent

to the Bill and the Constitution shall

stand amended.

The question whether amendment of

fundamental rights are covered by the

proviso to Article 368, came for

consideration in Shankari Prasad v.

Union of India, AIR 1951 S.C. 455. In

this case, validity of the First

Amendment which inserted Articles 31-

A and 31-B, was challenged.

The Supreme Court held that power to

amend the Constitution including the

fundamental rights, was contained In

Article 368 and that the word “Law” in

Article 13 (2) includes only an ordinary

law and not constitutional

amendments. Therefore, a

constitutional amendment will be valid

even if it abridges or takes away any of

the fundamental rights.

Same line of approach was followed in

SaJJan Singh vs. State of Rajas than, AIR

1965 S.C. 845, in which the validity of

Seventeenth Amendment of the

Constitution was challenged. Supreme

Court approved the majority Judgment

given In Shankari Prasad case, that

“amendment of the Constitution” means

amendment of all the provisions of the

Constitution.

But In Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab,

AIR 1967 S.C. 1643, and Supreme

Court overruled the decisions of

Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases

and held that Parliament had no power

to amend Part III of the Constitution so

as to abridge or take away the

fundamental rights.

The Constitution (24th Amendment) Act,

1971, was passed to remove the

difficulties created by the decision of

Golak Nath case. This amendment

provides that Article 13 does not

include the amendment of the

Constitution made under Article 368. It

added a new sub-clause In Article 368

which provides that “notwithstanding

anything in this Constitution,

Parliament may, in exercise of

constituent power, amend by way of

addition, variation, or repeal any

provision of the Constitution.”

The validity of this Amendment was

again challenged In Keshvanand Bhartiv.

State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1461. In

this case, Supreme Court overruled the

decision of Golak Nath case and held

that Article 368, even before the 24th

Amendment of the Constitution,

contained the powers as well as the

procedure of the amendment.

As regards the scope of the amending

power contained in Article 368, the

court said that the word “amendment”

has been used in various places to

mean different things. In Article 368, It

means any addition or change in any of

the provisions of the Constitution. The

fundamental rights cannot be

abrogated, but they can be amended

reasonably. The court further said that

every part of the Constitution can be

amended provided in the result the

basic structure of the Constitution

remains the same.

To remove the difficulties created by

the decision of Keshvanand Bharti Case,

the Constitution (42nd Amendment)

Act, 1976, has added two new clauses

(4) and (5) to Article 368 of the

Constitution. Clause (4) provides that

no constitutional amendment (including

the provisions of Part III) or purporting

to have been made under Article 368

whether before or after the

commencement of Constitution (42nd

Amendment) Act, 1976, shall be called

in question in any court on any ground.

Clause (5) declares that there shall be

no limitation whether on the

constituent power of Parliament to

amend by way of addition, variation or

repeal the provisions of the

Constitution under this Article.

In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,

AIR 1980 S.C. 1789, the Supreme Court

held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368

as void, because through these clauses

all limitations on the amending power

of the Parliament were removed.

The court held that Parliament cannot

have unlimited power to amend the

Constitution. “Limited amending power”

is the basic feature of the Constitution.

The court, however, held that the

doctrine of basic structure is to be

applied only in judging the validity of

the amendments to the Constitution

and it does not apply for judging the

validity of ordinary laws made by the

Legislature.

Sample Legal Arguments

Arguments Advanced

Issue 1. Is the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable as per Order XXXII Rule 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

NO, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, as this case is filed be Deepika but she cannot sue the authorities, as per the provisions of Order XXXII Rule1, at the time of filing of suit, she has not attained the age of majority as per Sec.3 of Indian Majority Act, 1875. Therefore, this suit is to be taken off as per Order XXXII rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Order XXXII Rule 1:-

Monor to sue be next friend:- Every suit by a monor shall be instituted in the name by a person who in such suit be called the next friend of the minor.

Order XXXII Rule 2:-

Where suit is instituted without next friend, plaint to be taken off the file:-

(1) Where a suit is instituted be or on behalf of a minor without a next friend, the defendant may apply tohave the plaint taken off the file, with cost to be paid be the pleader or other person be whom it was presented.

(2) Notice of such application shall be given to such person, and the court, after hearing his objections (any) mau make such order in the matter as it thinks fit.

In Smt. Sarla v. Sh. Ram Singh:- The Delhi District Court considered that “The suit on behalf of the minors plaintiff cannot be instituted without appointing their guardians u/o XXXII rule 1 CPC and therefore, suit is not properly instituted as far as the then minor plaintiff no. 2 and 3 are concerned. Suit therefore is instituted only by plaintiff no. 1 for herself and not being the then minor plaintiff no. 2 and 3. This issue therefore is decided accordingly.” And no relief was granted to the monors and in courts finding given on the issue no. 3 and 4, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The suit is dismissed however no order as to costs.

The Madras High Court in:-

Abdul Azeez v. Pathumma Bi

Order 32, Rule 1, C. P. C. lays down that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor. There arc no exceptions to this general rule of procedure contained in the Code itself. There is no definition of a minor in the Code nor in the General Clauses Act. The Indian Majority Act, IX of 1875 provides that every person domiciled in British India shall be deemed to nave attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of eighteen years and not before.

Therefore, Deepika has to file a suit be her next friend as per Order XXXII rule1.

Issue 2. Whether the injuries caused to the plaintiff was due to the carelessness and negligence of her parents?

Yes, the injuries caused to plaintiff was due to the carelessness and negligence of her parents. It is the duty of the parents to look after their children. The pump is operated electrically inside the room, which is not the place of playing for children and nobody is supposed to go in the room. Therefore, the parents were guilty of negligence for the alleged incident.

Negligence is the breach of a duty caused be the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided be those considerations which ordinarily refgulate the conduct of the human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable amn would not do. Actionable negligence consists in th neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, be which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property.

There are # constituents of Negligence:-

1. A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former’s conduct within the scope of duty.

2. Breach of the said duty

3. Consequential damage

Taking into consideration al the above constituents, it cannot be said that the injuries have been caused due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendants. The plaintiff had no business to enter into the pump room as the pupm is not perated in open space. It is the duty of the parents to look after the children. The pump is operated electrically inside the room, which is not the place of playing for children and nobody is supposed to go in the room. A parents is liable for their children’s negligent act if the parents knows or has reason to know that it is necessary to control the child and the parent fails to take reasonable actions to do so. This legal theory is known as negligent supervision. Liability for negligent supervision is not limited to parents. Grandparents, guardians and others with custody and control of a child may also be liable under these circumstances. Hence the negligence in this case is on part of plaintiff and not on the defendant.

The Delhi High Court in :-

Modh. Quamuddin & Ors. V. Union of India

In this present case, the petitioners are parents of children – Najruddin, aged about 11 yeares, Sajruddin, aged about 10 years, Saddam, aged about 14 years; and Arun, aged about 11 years – who were run over by a train and have filed the present petition seeking compensation for the loss of lives of their respective children. It was held that the parents of the deceased children were well aware of the risks involved in playing near the railway tracks and despite that, they allowed their children to paly near the railway tracks. The respondent had ensured that the tracks are not at the ground level and had thus taken the necessary safety measure to ensure that the tracks are not accessible in the normal course. The railway authorities have been advertising extensively cautioning the public of the hazards of trespassing on the railway tracks. The tracks also do not present a hidden trap. In the circumstances, it is difficult to apportion any blame on the railway authorities for the tragic incident.

Therefore, It was held that, the parents of the deceased children were negligent and hence, they were responsible for the incident. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Issue 3. Whether the plaintiff trespassed in the area of the dependent?

Yes, the plaintiff entered into the water pump area without the permission of the defendant. It shows that plaintiff was the guilty of trespass.

Meaning of Tory:- tort comes form Latin ward “Torum”, which means “To Twist”. Thus Tort is a conduct which is not straight of lawful; but on other hand; Twisted/Crooked or Unlawful.

In this case, there is also unlawful points exists. That is the point of Trespass which is also applied here, as per the facts of the case. As the girl went into the room without the permission of the authorites, where this water pump was installed.

Meaning of Trespass:- Trespass is direct interference in the person’s possession or land with the lawful justification. It also includes the interference with some material or Tangible objects also. It is a civil wrong which comes under the law of Torts.

Issue 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any compensation from the defendant?

No, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any compensation from the defendant as, the defendant did his work in due care and there is no negligence on the part of the defendant for this incidence.

As the defendant had installed the water pump with due care, as first of all, he maintained a proper room for this. Then, and attendant was also specifically appointed to look after the pump. And this pump was installed for providing the water facility to the residents of the quarters. Thus, defendant worked for the welfare of residents of that quarters. This shows that, the defendant did his work with due care and there is no negligence on the part of the defendant for this incidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any compensation from the defendant.

The Andhra High Court in:-

Mirza Mahboob Ali Baig Aslam v. Union Of India

"If the Children were trespassers, the land-owner was not entitled intentionally to injure them, or to put dangerous traps for them intending to injure them, but was under no liability if, in trespassing, they injured themselves on objects legitimately on his land in the course of his business. Against those he was under no obligation to guard trespassers."

In Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd. V. Dumbreck:-

A four year old child was killed be a horizontal iron wheel of a haulage system belonging to a colliery company. The Court held that the child was a trespasser and there was no legal duty cast upon the colliery company to afford any protection to him. The claim for compensation was rejected.

In British Railways Board v. Herrington:- Achild aged about eight years was injured by a live electrified wire of a railway line. The court considered the earlier decision.

Issue 5. Is the value of compensation is properly calculated?

In the present suit, the plaintiff is silent regarding the amount of compensation claimed be her and also the calculation of the compensation. This shows that if plaintiff now afterwards tells anything about the compensation, those will be tentative calculations. Therefore the plaintiff cannot entitled any amount of compensation on the basis of this tentative calculations.

The Supreme Court of India in:-

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.

In this case, it is said that The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb.

There are many precedent laid down be The Hon’ble Supreme Court and respective High Courts on how to calculate the compensation. According to those precendets every suit for compensation is a unique suit which depends upon the various factor mentioned below:

1. The earning of the individual claiming compensation.

2. The medical expenses occurred due to the accident.

3. The loss of income during the period of medical treatment.

4. The future earning of the individual.

5. The age of the individual claiming compensation.

Thus, this shows that the valuation must be done by doctors, not be plaintiff himself. If plaintiff done this without the doctors consultation, then this valuation is tentative. And in this case, the plaintiff even does not tell anything about the compensation and assessment of compensation. Therefore the plaintiff cannot entitled any amount of compensation on the basis of this tentative calculations.

Registration of Resident Welfare Association

REGISTRATION OF RWA

A Resident Welfare Association (RWA) is an entity that stands for the interest of individuals living in a community or a society. All RWAs require be registering and coming under a specific jurisdiction which makes it legally responsible for punishment/penalty in case of defaults or lawlessness.

For the most part, the association is a group of members chosen by the society members. When chosen, the RWA Registration needs to register under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is administered by constitutional documents such as Memorandum of Association that illustrates their rights and objectives. At least seven individuals could subscribe in their name for MOA for registration under Registrar of Societies to shape themselves into a Society under Societies Registration Act, 1860.

RWA Registration could be lawfully framed by a group of Resident Owners. The requirements for registration differ from state to state. With Least 7 Individuals in the state could apply for RWA registration with Jurisdictional Registrar Office. In numerous states, Builder Apartment or Group housing society covered under state Apartment Act and therein Apartment Owners Association (AOA) Resident could be formed. Also, in different cases, RWA can be formed as well. However, these associations run on subscriptions acquired from members and this is exempt on the mutuality basis in the view that nobody could make income out of himself.

Document Required for RWA Registration

Covering Letter.

List Of Body Members ( Name, Full Address, Occupation And Signature On The List).

Address Proof Of All Body Members (Voter ID/Aadhar/Driving License).

Address Proof Of Society Registered Address (Utility Bill/ Rent Agreement With NOC From Owner).

PAN Card Of All Body Members.

Memorandum And Bye-Laws Of The Proposed Association.

One Affidavit From President ( On Stamp Paper, Notarized).

Power Of Attorney.

Building Completion Certificates Issued By Concerned Authority ( If Apply For Apartment Owners Association In Some States).

Builders Consent And/Or Representation ( If Apply For Apartment Owners Association In Some States).

Home Registry Copy ( Apply For RWA Formation Only).

Buyers Association Essential Requirement:- If Form At State Level – Minimum 7 Body Members From Same State OR Format Central Level – Minimum 7 Members From Each State.

RWA/Apartment Owners Association Essential Requirement:- Minimum 7 Body Members From The Same State. In Case Of AOA, This Minimum Number Varies State To State As Per The State Apartment ACT.