VINAY B SHAH
30 October 2012 at 18:56
Dear sir,
My client dealing in steel trading he supplied 10,000 kgs of steel to there party (abc) at time of due date the party (abc) give only 75% payment balance dues of 25% payment party (abc) says take from third party (xyz) (abc friend) so at that time my client accept and he take balance 25% payment from third party (xyz) by way of RTGS.
party (abc) as well as third party (xyz) have confirmed to adjust the said amount towards the dues of party (abc).
Now the third party(xyz) is denies after some days giving payment he is saying that retune my money which I sent u in advance for new purchase against purchase order.
Third party(xyz) send a Notice to my client
As my client never talk about new purchase with third party(xyz) or he don’t know about purchase order my client is shocked and surprised about the purchase order what to do.
my client adjust the 25% balance dues payment in their party (abc) account.
please give me your opinion & reference & judgment on it
thank you
RAJESH CHOUDHARY
29 October 2012 at 19:37
I want to ask one question regarding the law language. I am giving an example of a definition :- Review :- The right of review has been conferred by section 114 and order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section provides that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order, may apply for a review of judgement , to the court which passed the decree or made the order on any of the grounds mentioned. now my question is if I change the words as Any person (includes himself) so does it really change the meaning of the definition. If I substitute these words ,what meaning it would constitute like :-
1. it means that aggrieved persons should include himself as well.
2. it means any person who is aggrieved , it can be himself or other than himself Or otherwise there can be some other word which can be replaced against considering himself.
Law experts ........ please reply this question. I am waiting for your answers .......
Ritambhara
29 October 2012 at 16:29
whether any statutory order passed in favour of a party prevails over the board resolution passed against that party.
ravikanth
29 October 2012 at 15:48
I have GPA on a land and the GPA has been registered with the registrar's office. The Agreement was to construct a shopping complex with a share of 60% (developer ) 40%( land owner )in the agreement he mentioned that until he will get the permission he wont start the construction as when he get the permission he will complete the construction in 2 years.now 5 years completed still he didn't applied for the permission .totally 11 members agreement to the developer . out of this only 3 members including me want to cancel the agreement GPA will it possible ? Please suggest
Neelu
29 October 2012 at 13:14
can one person working/acting as CEO of one firm start any company in the same name and style of the existing firm which he is working currently..........very urgent
Bhupen
29 October 2012 at 11:27
Hello, I have few queries in Company petiton.
In 1997, I had filed CP for winding up. That was heard and conditional order was passed in 2006 directing respondents to pay the amount.
In mean time in 2006 Company disposed off its only asset without informing court, third party.
Respondents failed to pay and in 2007 Final order of winding up was passed. In 2010 It was set aside as Respondents were nt served U/R 28. It was heard fresh and again it was order to Wound up.
However in Appeal, division Bench Set aside the order and asked petitoner to file SUIT. Aagin Suit was decreed in Favor of Petitioner/Plaintiff. But still respondents didnt pay the money.. Now again I have filed CP. The respondents are not doing any business since 2001.
The respondent doesnt have any money nor any assets except for table space office.
Now can i get hold of assets which was sold to Third Party or can i put a stay on transaction ?
Regadrs,
Bhupen Shah
Chinmay Kamat
28 October 2012 at 22:55
Hi,
In most states, registration of partnerships deeds is not compulsory because the partnership act does not mandate it (although it confers certain benefits once it is registered).
My question is, suppose the deed specifies that the partners bring into the firm as capital any immovable property valued over Rs 100, then does the deed need to be registered compulsorily under the Registration Act, 1908.
S 17(1)(b) makes it compulsory for any "non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property" to be compulsorily registered.
Please advice.
surjit singh
28 October 2012 at 20:14
This is a matter before the Insurance Ombudsman. The Applicant approached the Insurance Ombudsman and his complaint was registered on 20.6.2012. After three months the Insurance Ombudsman issued notice dated 24.9.12 to the applicant after the date of registration of the complaint for sending the complaint again in form P-II, otherwise the case will be closed. The complainant again sent his complainant in form P-II.
Whether the Insurance Ombusaman is not governed by the Redressal of Public Grievnaces Rule, 1998.
In this rule it specifically provides that the complaint is to be disposed of preferablly within three months and no where the rules followed by the insurance ombudsman speaks of again sending the complaint in form P-II when the case is received and registered.
In this case what is next step available to the applicant, when the Insurance Ombudsman is following a self impossed procedure not impowered by any law or rules. The applicant has also filed an RTI application in this respect asking whether there is any other written rule which is follwed by the Insurance Ombudsman. In view of the above is it advisable to approach the Insurance Regularatory Authority or wait for the reply of the RTI Applicaton, or submit himself before the discrition of the Insurance Ombudsman.
Asha
28 October 2012 at 10:11
approval of which authority has to be taken in case of alteration of situation clause of memorandum (section 17)...?? CG or CLB?? different answers are given in the following sites... http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/259977/
http://www.vak ilno1.com/bareacts/companiesact/s17.htm
please help asap!!
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Exit agreement for a director so remaining directors cannot be held financially liable later
Hello Experts,
I am one of the 3 directors of a Private Limited company. The business has not been doing well and one of the directors, who holds 50% of the share capital, wants to quit. He wants his entire investment back, which includes a Rs 8 lac loan which had a lock in period of 5 years as per the board resolution (year 2 currently running). The company does not have enough money yet to payback.
My question is- if the director agrees to keep the loan amount in the company for a regular interest and the company only pays back the share capital as of now, will the remaining directors be personally liable to pay back the loan (which has been given to the company, and not to the directors personally) in case the business has to be shut down next year? I would assume since its a Pvt Ltd company, the directors would have limited liability and only the assets of the company can be used.
Are there any clauses that need to be specifically put in the exit agreement with the outgoing director so that the remaining directors cannot be held personally liable for this loan on a future date if the business has to be shut down?
Thanks
Akash