S. 138 n.i. act

SORRY FOR INCONVENIENCE!

DUE TO SOME ISSUES WE ARE NOT REPLYING TO ANY QUERY

that will be valid defense.

"A: is the plaintiff, filed partition suit against "B" who is the elder brother of her father. now "B" took the plea of adverse possession as he is in possession more than 12 years.

my question is, whether the plea of adverse possession can be claimed in partition suit,

plea of adverse possession can be maintainable against the brother.

pls inform me if u have any citations,

urs,

vnpatil_adv@rediffmail.com or send sms to 09480062120

Dear friends suggest me on this fact,

A & B got divorced, now they want to join again without remarriage,

should I challange the decree?

should I file an appeal?

or what else?

NI Act is very clear, within 15 Days of receipt of notice.....

The point is

what do you mean by vacating and proof ?

How the court got your new address...

Who leaves at your old address presently..

Did you receive notice at your new address also..

Can you prove that you could not have received the notice at your old address ?

You can come out of cheque bounce problems.

There is presumption in law but easy and simple to rebut it.

I pose a simple question to all who are for holder of bounced cheque.

How you can prove this cheque was issued to the accused and it has come form that the bank only.

JSDN,  You are very aggressively with accused. I agree with you that it is difficult to prove but still you are not present everywhere and accused gets convicted. Remember one thing there are dishonest drawers also, full of them, and they deserve punishment.

As far as proving that the cheque is of accused, signature admittance is sufficient, and as far as Bank is concerned, dishonor slip is sufficient evidence. If accused denies the signature, Bank can be summoned.

I am telling what are the possiblities.

Accused will not and should not admit signature.

Complainant as a rule mis in pleadings and hence subsquent deposition of bank has no significance.

Please note the finer points for any defense for cheque bounce.

1) Cheque should be from the account of the accused.

2) It should have been issued to him by the bank.

3) It is bounced by his bank and not by collecting bank.

TRY TO SEARCH ANSWERS AND IN CROSS ALL CAN BE DEMOLISHED.

Pt#3 is very valid and it has no cause of action/fault of drawer if dishonored by colecting bank itself.

1. Signature admittance is sufficient for Pt#1&#2, mere denial of signature by accused will not help, it is the his bank who has to state that signature's on the instrument are not that of accused, means accused has to prove that signature are not his.

But in general: The accused can be helped to come out of this mess, we support only in case accused is honest and gets trapped by complainant.

Go to actual seneorio of transections than you will realise the impotrance of point three.

And how can you say who is honest and who is not.

Normally it takes 3 to 5 years and if the matter goes to appeal / revision ten years so it can be assumed that the transection was real but being used by loan sharks and even banks have joined it .

But then if no recourse is available can people be left to be duped.

Regarding the original querry , now SC and many HC s have fine tuned the provisions of service of notice and reciept of notice.

section b says of giving of notice but section c says after recipt on notice if payment not made than accused liable. Both conditions must be fufilled. One of the observation of SC in such case.

This is bad in law.

What if the party is avoiding service of notice.

This is bad in law.

What if the party is avoiding service of notice.