Saravanan Kumar
16 October 2013 at 09:05
I am Planing to start a trust to help poor students so i need to now what are the legal documents i should have reply me i am living in Bangalore Name: Saravanan Kumar
Dr. Tirath Garg
15 October 2013 at 11:02
Sir, I filed suit for injunction and the trial court denied stay u/s 39 rule 1$2 CPC so filed appeal in Sessions Court.
Sir, the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak has wrongfully denied me the stay by relying upon fabricated account of facts and text of judgment of ld. Collector, Moonak in petition u/s 5 of the Pb. Public Premises & Land Act. Relying upon the fabricated statements of defendants i.e. E.O. Nagar Council Lehragaga the ld. Judge has observed,”It is apposite to state here that demarcation of suit land was conducted by Labh Singh, Field Kanungo at the instance of defendants in the proceedings under Public Premises Act, wherein bothers of plaintiff were found to be in illegal possession of the property of defendants. It was found that they had encroached and raised construction to the extent of 3-1/2 karams towards the Northern side and to the extent of 4-1/2 karams towards Southern side. This report clearly reflects upon the encroachment done by the brothers of the plaintiff upon the adjoining land of the defendants.”
Sir, the unambiguous observation of ld. Collector, Moonak under Public Premises Act reads,”I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the evidence on record. The petitioner claims to be owner of land measuring 1815 sq. feet which is comprised in Khevat no. 254 Khatauni no. 1850 Khasra no. 229, 1-5 and it is duly proved from entries in Jamabandi Ex. P1 and girdavri entries Ex. P2 on the file. It is also in evidence that the petitioner made a request for demarcation of land in dispute and on 24.4.2001 Labh Singh Field Kanungo provided demarcation wherein he reported that Brij Lal respondent s/o Balak Ram had encroached upon the land in dispute by raising construction of his house.”
Sir, kindly examine the demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo which states in crystal clear words that Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram has encroached and raised construction to the extent of 3-1/2 karams towards the Northern side and to the extent of 4-1/2 towards Southern side. Moreover Labh Sigh have attached a map with the demarcation report which clearly shows that on the western side Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram have done encroachment and constructed house. Sir Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram or any of his family member is not my brother.
Sir, no where in the orders of ld. Collector Moonak is written that Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal(my brothers) have done encroachment and no where in the report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo is written that Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal have done encroachment. After oral family partition Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal have sold land out of their own share to son and wife of Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram so I have nothing to do with that. Moreover my land is situated on Eastern side whereas encroachment has been done by Brij Lal on the western side.
Sir, I was not party to the case under Public Premises Act nor I had any relation with that so the orders of ld, Collector, Moonak are in no way binding on me therefore it was not required for me to place this judgment before the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak. It has never been established that even an inch of encroachment has been done by me neither in the report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo on 24.4.2001, nor in the demarcation report of Field Kanungo Lehra on 21.4.2011 and by a Commission headed by Tehsildar Lehra on 24.1.2013. Moreover my land is on the Eastern side and encroachment has been done on Western side.
Sir, I was born. brought up and educated at Lehragaga and shifted out for higher education and profession which is my fundamental right which the respondents have no right to question. Respondents have falsely stated in the court that I have sold all my property and I am no longer owner of any property which can be verified from the record on file.
Sir, the respondents gave willfully and with mala fide intention fabricated account of the orders of Ld. Collector, Moonak in Public Premises Act and demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo in the court with the intention of denying justice to me and gave false account that I have sold all my land and no longer owner of any portion. Even the fabricated submissions of respondents in the court show that they have intention to dispossess me from my lawful possession of my land that is why I filed this suit. Does their act amounts to committing perjury as laid down under section 191 of I.P.C. and are liable to be punished as defined under section 193 of I.P.C.
As the ld. Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak has relied only on the fabricated statements of respondents and have not heard to my pleadings nor have read the judgment of Ld. Collector, Moonak under Public Premises Act and demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo nor the record on file to verify that I am lawful owner of land. Therefore I am entitled to relief.
In Need of Help
15 October 2013 at 06:15
Dear Experts,
Greetings
Our quarterly bill payment to Society was delayed by 15 days and due to this they are now in the new bill charging us for full quarter (90 days) and not for the no. of days delayed.
The last Bill was saying interest rate at 1.5% but they are charging at 2% stating that BMC is also charging at 2%.
Our Queries:
a) Are we suppose to pay for the entire 90 days of the bill period or only for the number of days delayed?
b) If the bill is stating 1.5% then can the society charge at 2%?
c) Can we refuse to pay at 2% even though they say that BMC is charging at 2% for since last year?
Kindly help us with your expert advice.
Thank you
Best Regards
Akshay R
15 October 2013 at 03:42
Dear Experts,
I had disputed a fraud transaction on my SC credit card in Feb-2013. The transaction was some 19,000 russian ruble (INR 34,000). When i submitted the dispute form i was informaed that investigation will take 45-90 days and i will receive formal communication. As i was living abroad since Jan-2013, i had updated the customer care both via email and over phone that i need all communication on my email and my postal address is no longer valid. For next 6 months i did not receive any communication from them. I contacted them again in July-2013 and then they said that they have completed the investigation in favor of the merchant and sent the transaction details to my mail address. I asked them to provide me the transaction details, details of the merchant, proof of purchase on my email, but they have not provided it till today. I have been calling them and writing email on a regular basis but they do not provide any specific answer. All they say is that it was a secured online transaction and i must pay immediately.
So now my question is -
1)What will happen next? How long can they stretch the case? What about the high intertest that they have adding all this time?
2)Do i have the right to demand proof of purchase and other transaction details from the bank? Since I do not have any information about the merchant, i cannot communicate with him.
3)Since i had clearly updated them about my living abroad status and my desire to receive all communications via email at the start of the dispute investigation. Is it my fault that i did not receive the document which they sent to my postal address?
nagarathinam
14 October 2013 at 11:00
1.what is insurance?First party?second party?third party?
2.Insurance important points?
Anonymous
14 October 2013 at 10:30
Sir, I need to know about law is there any distance education for that, if so which can I prefer..
Arun
13 October 2013 at 22:26
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am 47 years old and a law graduate. Now I want continue my profession as a lawer in Delhi.
So if i start fresh as a lawer then what will be my minimum income per month.
Regards
Arun
Dnyanesh
13 October 2013 at 20:07
i had filed a complaint in Assistant Charity commissioner under section 37 of Bombay public Trust Act 1950 about the illegalities of the trust last year. But yet no enquiry/ invistigation have been initiated by the inspector/Assistant Charity Commissioner.The trust is running various schools and colleges and taking 100% grants from the governmnet.I'm the affected party. I'm an assistant teacher in the school run by the trust and i'm an affected person by the affairs of the trustees.
Now can i file a writ petition in the High Court against Asstt Charity Commissioner for not taking action on my complaint?
can i file a writ against the Board members of the trust simultaneously?
Dnyanesh
13 October 2013 at 20:04
i had filed a complaint in Assistant Charity commissioner under section 37 of Bombay public Trust Act 1950 about the illegalities of the trust last year. But yet no enquiry/ invistigation have been initiated by the inspector/Assistant Charity Commissioner.The trust is running various schools and colleges and taking 100% grants from the governmnet.I'm the affected party. I'm an assistant teacher in the school run by the trust and i'm an affected person by the affairs of the trustees.
Now can i file a writ petition in the High Court against Asstt Charity Commissioner for not taking action on my complaint?
can i file a writ against the Board members of the trust simultaneously?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Consumer act
i have filled case for delay of property at state consumer where respondent are declared as Ex party however recently they approced state forum to set aside the order which was dismissed by court i want to know at this stage can respondent approch directly national forum against that order ( as set aside application was rejected) also can they obtain stay from national forum for proceeding at state forum?