tapan mondal
26 May 2011 at 21:22
Dear Sir,
I am an ex-serviceman, retired from Indian Navy after completing 15 yrs of service on 31 Aug 2010.
Now I am about to join Government Medical Store (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) as LDC. I got selected through SSC - CHSL exam 2010-11.
Now my question is am I eligable for pay fixation under any government scheme, because the AO of that office is unwilling to accept that there is any such rule. My basic as LDC will be Rs. 5200/- and my last basic drawn was Rs. 9800/-.
regards,
Tapan Mondal
09874265185
email : tapan_555@yahoo.co.in
555tapan@gmail.com
rajkumar sharma
25 May 2011 at 14:59
Sir I nedd clarification...
I was having a plywood factory at place A,I sold my Factory land And apply for shifting my unit to some other place.I immidiately bought aland at new place.I apply for shifting.The concerned CCF says that my licence will be cancelled since I had sold the land.
Tha factory was situated in the state of Assam.
My queries is whether it is mandotry that I cant sale the land before it is shifted to new place.
opinion solicited
raghavendra
25 May 2011 at 10:11
sir
kindly any body give me the citation .
that for motorcab can use commercial purpose without obtaining the endorsment from the authoity
or light motor vehicle licence is suficient touse motor cab for commercial purpose.
please anynody help me i am in tremondous damages
thanking you
preet
24 May 2011 at 17:02
I have sanctioned a loan of 20.00 Lacs and cash credit limit of 5.00 Lacs The loan and limit was sanctioned against a property and same time. But The bank had given me full loan,but cash credit limit disbursed partially. I have given many reminder to bank for full disbursement of cash credit limit.But the bank has refused my request my dues gone up 26.00 lacs.The bank issued me SARFAESI notice U/S 13(2).
according to SARFAESI act the notice will be issued only when the dues are 20% of the principal.
Now my question is which amount will be calculated as basis for dues 20.00 lacs(only loan amount) or 20.00 (loan amount)+5.00 lacs (cash credit amount)=25.00 Lacs
Anonymous
19 May 2011 at 09:41
Dear All Sir’s
A girl about 19+ years of age, every now and then make call to a boy, his age also 19+ but the boy want to avoid her. So the girl threaten the boy that she will commit suicide herself, this happen very often, yesterday the boy went to inform all these to her father and did accordingly . After few moment the girl again call the boy to a place over phone but he didn’t went to meet her after this father of the girl also called the boy and threatened that he will make a FIR of kidnapping of his daughter.
For these the boy is feeling insecure, irritates and can’t concentrate in his studies for last one year especially for her threaten of making suicide herself.
Therefore my humble request to you all what action the boy or his family can take against the girl or to her family. Please advice, please
Thanking in anticipation.
UTTAM SINGH NEGI
18 May 2011 at 16:29
Dear Friends,
I have a very urgent query. I want to know that if a listed company in india has a joint venture with 50% holding and that joint venture has a subsidiary with 100% then will that subsidiary of that JV will under the purview of SEBI, its laws and regulations. If yes, please specify the relevant section.
With kind regards,
Uttam Singh Negi
Anonymous
18 May 2011 at 11:03
The interest on delayed payments to Small Scale & Ancillaray Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. Under this Act the loal Industry Facilitation Council, Commissioner of Inds.A.P.is conducting Arbitration proceedings as per section 25(a,b,c)of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1966, with reference to Sec.23 Cl.1of Arbitration Act.
Under Cl.7 "Appeal" of Delayed Payment Act of 1993 it reads:No appeal against any decree,award or other order shall be entertained by any court or other authority unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy -five per cent of the amount in terms of the decree award or , as the case may be, other order in the manner directed by such court or, as the case may be such authority.
This clause puts undue hardship to the buyer(respondent) when the respondent has a reason to believe that the arbitration proceedings are not conducted properly or sufficient opportunity is not given to the respondent to defend his case.
Pease give your opinion in the light of the recent suprement court ruling in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs.Tantia Construction Pvtd.Ltd.,...that the consitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court can not be fettered by any alternataive remedy available to the authorities. Injustice whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.
AJAYKUMAR NAIR
17 May 2011 at 14:58
Can anyone tell me what should be the height of the roof from floor of a Factory shopfloor.
Shelley Agrwal
17 May 2011 at 12:49
the fact of the case are as follows:
1. the incident is dated back to 8 years.
2. the person held the shares of madras port ltd.
3. the company was delisted and it offered the person for forefeiture of the same but that person refused and kept the same with himself....
Que 1: after delisting the shares with the above shareholder are of any worth or not???
fact 4: the person after a little while sent the same shares and other scripts to bank for dematerialisation & securtisation.
5. the bank sent the scripts of madras port to the company for same, the company acquired the same and without the permission of the sahreholder forfeited the same and send the shareholder cheques relating to the reffered shares.
Que 2: Can the Company do what it did was the act legal???
Fact 6. the cheques were received by the shareholder but never deposited in the bank for clearing...
Que. 3: Can they be encashed by any means now???
Ques 4: Is there any remedy for the shareholder to get back the money involved??
and does the shareholder has any remedy agains what the compan did??
is there any limitation of time involved in this case???
Please reply specifing the applicable ACTS & related Provisions & Sections
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
SEBI (SAST): Preferential Allotment
Promoter & PAC of the listed company (where in minimum public holding should be 25%) holds 65%.
The Company wants to raise fund for the CAPEX, so convertible warrants would be issued to promoter, so that on the date of conversion Promoter holding would come around 69.20%.
As per SEBI (SAST) under clause 11(2) (i), promoter & PAC could not increase their stake through preferential allotment.
Therefore company is planning to dilute further stake to the non promoter maintaining promoter shareholding at 65% in the same board resolution i.e. allotment to both promoter and non-promoter.
My Query:
a. Is this a valid under the eyes of law?
b. Is this does not trigger open offer as preferential allotment is prohibited above 55% holding?
Yours inputs are solicited?