Anonymous
17 March 2011 at 13:42
As i did not get much replies for my query i am posting it again. Can some expert respond on this.
I am having a property in andhra pradesh. i got this property from my ancestors through an UNREGISTERED WILL. this will (unregistered) is executed on my name before my birth. and the person who wrote will on my name died before my birth took place. recently i constructed a house in that property. I approached a private bank. they gave housing loan based on that UNREGISTERED WILL. along with that UNREGISTERED WILL they took legal heir certificate (originals) and house tax book receipts from me(house tax receipts on are on my name) to give that loan
Even though UNREGISTERED WILL is on my name , property documents are not converted to my name. they are still on my ancestors name.
1)Can some one tell me the process to get documents of my property converted to my name if its possible now ?
2)if not can i give this property as gift deed to my wife or kid in future ?
3)if so which is a better option ? giving to wife or kid ( who is less than 3 years age) ?
4)if i give this property through gift deed to my kid , can i change it in future ?
5)if i can change in future what are the number of years up to which i wil have the hold to change it ?
6)what are the cost involved with this ?
7)whats your best suggestion to handle this.
Anonymous
16 March 2011 at 20:17
Mrs. Vandana is a professional in the Auckworks Company dealing with Computer Software. She is married to Mr. Sujay who is a lawyer by profession. She is an active blogger and often chats on the internet but one night Vandana was unable to log on to her account. Her friend, Ms. Sanjana called her up and informed her that a chat message was circulating from her account which showed a very vulgar chat of hers with an unknown guy called Mr. Shiv Sharma. Further, she informed her that she has reportedly admitted in the chat that she was having an affair with a guy called Shyam for the last two years behind the back of her husband which was sent to all her contacts and her husband’s contacts as well. The interesting factor was that the chat had been dated 3rd October 2008 while the mail has been circulated on the 5th of October 2008.
Mr. Sujay was disturbed with this fact and insisted to sever all ties with Vandana, who, on the other hand, lodged a F.I.R. with the cybercrime cell of the police in Delhi on 7th December, 2008. During the course of investigation it was revealed that there was absence of any specific IP address in India as the blogger had logged through a Proxy Server in Canada. After three months, the police could not locate any person by the name Shiv Sharma, but the person called Mr. Shyam, who was a Diplomat of Kenya in India, had been traced. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mean while issued a demarche to the Consulate of Kenya at Delhi. The police meanwhile had sealed all the electronic records of Mrs. Vandana and was treating them as evidence.
The police charge sheeted Mr. Shyam on 21st July, 2009 for cyber hacking based on the electronic records of Mrs. Vandana available to them. Mrs. Vandana meanwhile broke down mentally as the lawyer she has consulted could not suggest her some proper solution. She, however, accused Shyam for defaming her by way of circulating the chat messages to everyone in her contact list.
Shyam denied all the allegations including the ones made by Vandana. In statement Mr. Shyam has contended that he was a good friend of Mrs. Vandana but they were not having any affair and that they both were unaware of any Shiv Sharma. The prosecution contended that Shyam had hacked the account of Mrs. Vandana with the intention to separate Vandana from her husband and also attempted to defame her.
The chat had been done through SKYPET network a Proxy Server in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). The police issued a notice for disclosure of the entire transcripts of chats as well the details of users. However, SKYPET has its headquarters in (PoK) and had refused to hand over any details regarding their users on any account. The only record which the prosecution had was the auto saved chat messages on Vandana’s computer which had been there between Vandana and Shyam, no such records were recovered from the computer confiscated from cyber cafe. In those chats it has been seen that Shyam had consistently been saying that he loves Vandana and can go to any extent to get her from the clutches of her husband. The prosecution contends that Shiv Sharma and Shyam is the same individual and Shyam had planned to break all the ties between Vandana and her husband and thus get her for himself.
When the case was put forth before the court for trial, the accused contended that the electronic records provided could not be treated as evidence according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and also that, a chat which had been recorded on a foreign server cannot be treated as a piece of evidence in this regard. The defence further contended that on the alleged date i.e. 3rd and 5th of October he was in the Consulate Office of Tanzania at Delhi and he had also produced a log book of the Consulate as evidence to show that he was at Consulate. Besides, the trial court concluded that the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not have any specific provision to punish a person based on the facts of the given case. The Trial Court has acquitted him from all charges completely ignoring the issue of defamation.
The State has now moved in appeal before the Delhi High Court to prosecute Shyam for the offences of cyber hacking and cyber defamation, the accused pleads that the High Court does not have any jurisdiction in this case as the Cyber Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with these cases. Besides, the High Court cannot go back to the facts of the case and deal with merits in order to come to a judgment and the Trial Court has been right in deciding that the electronic records cannot serve as evidence.
However the petitioner relied upon the doctrine of exclusive knowledge and contended that burden of proof is reversed. Therefore accused was under a liability to prove his innocence and show that he had not done any of the chats to which accused contends that the exclusive theory will not hold good in this case as he was not present during the time of the chat in contention and that he could not be made to give proof incriminating against him in this regard.
The Appeal is set for hearing before Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 26th March
2011.
Note: The teams are required to prepare a case from both the sides.
Rahul Singh
15 March 2011 at 23:06
Whether claim u/s 163A of the M.V.Act filed by the wife of the deceased who was the driver of the vehicle died due to his own negligence by driving rash & negligently is tenabe and furthur that risk of driver is covered in Ins.Policy,so the ins.co.is liable or not?(to my opinion LR's can't claim for own negligence.Want a ruling for this!)
Anonymous
15 March 2011 at 15:31
Respected Experts
What are the verious penal legal provision that deal with the corrupt Public Autority(Director) who made illagal appointment(without advertised the vacant posts)in govt. service taking remuneration from people.
Pliz advice step wised how to prosecute such corrupt authority in Court of law.
Thank's in advance.
Anonymous
15 March 2011 at 12:32
Thank you very much Mr. R. Ramachandran Sir,
May I request you to please furnish if there is any ruling or case number. You may please provide the above or copy paste the needed information.
Thank you once again
Anonymous
15 March 2011 at 01:19
Hi, I have an query or u can a confusion related to DCR 33 7 & MHADA 95 A,this is a case of a developer under DCR 33 (7) in composite redevelopment scheme. My father a tenant & was been actally shifetd to transit camp on the same plot of the developer in year 2001 & later the developer called my father to execute a agreement of a flat but the building was constructed in the year 1997 & we shifted in year 2001 in transit, but my father refused it because it was already been alotted to one of the tenant in the 1997 and she sold it to developer in year 2006.I have a question that is the developer is right to give an allotment which was already allotted to other means used one..& recently the MHADA gave us a notice to vacate in 7 day's & to shift to permanent alternate accomadation. We appealed in city civil court but we didin't get any injunction or relief against the eviction in the year 2010 they vacated us and shifted to the old building saying it was alloted on my father name in year 1997. later i came to know from one of the real eastate broker that mhada dont have power's to put you in permanent alternate accomodation, they can only put you in transit camp under 95 A. is he right?
D.Kalirajan
14 March 2011 at 17:32
Dear Experts,
I am having dought on the following,
1.Once the stay grant by CESTAT can we request CESTAT for early hearing? In there any monetray limit isd there to ask early hearing/
2.Once the CESTAT grant stay can we submit any further submission as submitting the additional submissions before Commissioner(Appeals).
Please enlight
sajjala
14 March 2011 at 16:20
Can some one help me out with the latest TPA Regulation ?
I need the latest copy, do send me
thanx & regards
Sajjala
Anonymous
14 March 2011 at 14:23
Our Society, The Anandashram CHS Ltd, is a Society where the land and the buildings are owned by the Society.
The permission to park a vehicle is given on the sole discretion the of the Managing Committee.
For subtenants we are charging a higher rate than for regular tenants. Also, we have three garages which are again given to tenants on the sole discretion of the managing committee.
The question is
1) Can a tenantwho has been given the permission to park his vehicle in one of the Garages rent it out to his subtenant<
2)Can subtenants be charged a higher rate for parking after this has been approved by the General Body at a Special General Meeting convened specifically to amend the bye laws pertaining to parking rules?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
want my shares back
Sir,
I did the below complaint in bank of baroda-
"In 1997 I bought 100 shares of Bank of BARODA by PUBLIC OFFER.I also received its certificate.My Reg. Folio no. is - BBE170785 and CERTIFICATE NO. is - 246159 .Distinctive no. is 0220615701 to 0220615800 .I was not informed about 2nd call money at all via any means and so I didn't pay the 2nd call money as I was not informed about it.I contacted them many times to transfer my shares into my DEMAT account.I wrot them letters in the years 2002 to fulfill the need,but they didn't reply.Again I tried to contact them in 2005 via letter and they sent a letter in return informing that my letter has been sent to the share unit of BANK of Baroda for further clarification on the issue.In 2006 I sent the original share certificate to transfer it into my Demat but they kept the original share certificate and told me that due to miscellaneous reasons all my " NEW DRF REQUIRED AND OLD SHARES ARE FORFEITED AND RETAINED BY THE COMPANY." Also they neither returned my money nor transfered the shares into my Demat account.Now they should either return my money back along with the interest or transfer the shares into my Demat account."
But they replied that-
"You may please note that Bank of Baroda has forfeited all the partly paid up equity shares in June 2003 on which call money/allotment money was not paid. The Bank forfeited the Shares under the relevant Regulations as approved by Government of India by Gazette notification. The Bank observed the due process including the issuance of periodical Notices/Reminders/Forfeiture Notice including publishing a Notice in newspapers also. Moreover, the relevant Offer Document dated 27th September, 1996 at Page No.8 very clearly stated that “Failure to pay the amount as aforesaid, shall render the allotment of equity shares liable to cancellation and amount paid liable to forfeiture.”
Moreover as per norms approved by Government of India Gazette notification “Forfeiture of share extinguishes all claims against Bank with regards to forfeited shares.”
Chief Manager,
Head Office, Baroda.
I again replied that-
"Its not necessary that every individual read the newspaper in which the information mentioned by you was given.You should have sent me a call money reminder and if you have already done that than you must be having the record of when you sent that reminder.So please provide me those details from your record.Also send me copy of the government rules as mentioned by you according to which shares can be forfeited without giving any reminder for call money.I don't think there is any rule which allows shares to be forfeited without any reminder for call money.Due to this decision of your bank I have to suffer from great economic and mental tension.If I didn't want to keep those shares than Iwould have sold them at that time only when they were issued.If I would have been informed about call money than I would have paid it that time only.I am ready to pay the call money along with interest for the shares now . Kindly look over the matter and return back my shares and resolve it as soon as possible."
The reasons given by me in this matter are true as they didn't inform me about any call money by any means.But they are not ready to accept any of the reasons stated by me.Kindly look into their records if they ever sent any reminder for call money and my shares should be freed by them and given back to me.
from
Awadh Sharan Shandilya
Ph. no.- 07582227292, 9406531741
Add.-deen kuti parkota,sagar,madhya pradesh