Reetu Dwivedi
22 May 2014 at 15:38
Dear Sirs,
I am doing a contract which has a 0 value. We want to test our product in market through a supplier whose customers will be using our products.Now this supplier will charge us on the basis order form. And supplier is asking fro an advance payment of whole year,which is not decided yet. and they are not ready to accept advance payment for any lesser period. The risk for us is too high, that if they breach the contract all our money will be gone.
SAI
21 May 2014 at 19:38
Can anybody provide me solution to end the problem that i actually came across..............
There is a individual who invested all his assets in a Rice Mill of worth Rs.8 crores (approx.) in the year 2011.Then the business continued for 1.5 years continuously. Suddenly the business lacks working capital due to abscondance of cash by the person involved in construction, who was the friend of the individual in the 2013. There is no specific evidence to prove the fraud. Thus, the business discontinued. On the other hand, as there is no profits, the bank debts (neither the principle sum nor interest) of Rs.4 crores(approx.)could not cleared as there is no cash availability. As the business organisation is not paying any sum to bank. The bank considered the debt as NPA and is going to conduct auction on or before 06.06.2014.All the assets were struck in the bank as securities for the loan whereas the individual has Rs.4 crores of bank loan and Rs.2 crores of unsecured loan.
Banker valued the mill value for Rs.1.63 crores and other securities for Rs.60 lakhs only whereas the valuation report by the Approved valuer valued the mill for Rs.5.35 crores (approx.). There is a heavy pressure from the creditors as the auction amount does not cover their debts.
Please provide a probable and suitable solution for the above query.................
P.C. Joshi
20 May 2014 at 17:43
Dear Friends, first of all I want to confirm the existing FDI limit in retail. As per my knowledge the same is as under: 1. Single Brand retail: 100 FDI allowed(49% sutomatic route in excess of 49% with Central Govt. Multiple Brand Retail- No FDI is allowed even with Govt. approval. Now my query is: A Ltd deals in whole sale trade and has FRI of about 30%. It wants to operate in retail sector with multiple brands but can'nt do retail sale under FDI policy. However A ltd has a private company in the same gropu in which there is no FDI.But Directors and Indian shareholders are same in both the company. Can this Private company can do retail/online/e commece business with customers directly after buying the goods from A Ltd. as its wholesale/distributor.Please advise. Thansk
& Regards, P.C. Joshi
mohan sehgal
19 May 2014 at 21:06
Due to working place bootlenecks...I had to rent-in a working shed nearby my parent registered unit to comply with fullfillment of orders...Raw material for necesarry processing etc. are sent to the second registerd primeses and then returned back to the main parent-unit for further processing etc.s etc. and finally cleared after paying approprirate excise duty... whether the IInd unit file any Excise Return although It is keeping all appropriate Inward/Outward records
amar
19 May 2014 at 11:29
If one is starting private locker business where people can keep their valuables/important documents
Is there any need to take permission from RBI ???
Thanks in Advance
pctulsian
18 May 2014 at 11:46
WHAT IS THE POSITION OF BUYER OF A PROPERTY (NOT-MORTGAGED AS PART OF GUARANTEE) OF A GUARANTOR-
1.if he has not received any notice of recovery from the bank
2.if he has simply received notice of recovery from the bank
3.if he has received notice of recovery from the bank under SARFAESI ACT
4.if he has received notice of recovery from the bank under DRT ?
pctulsian
18 May 2014 at 11:10
WHAT IS BUYER'S POSITION WHO PURCHASED HOUSE(NOT MORTGAGED AS PART OF GUARANTEE) FROM A GUARANTOR TO WHOM NOTICE OF RECOVERY FROM BANK HAS ALREADY BEEN SERVED IN RESPECT OF A DEBT DUE FROM A PRINCIPAL DEBTOR ?
Sanjeev Hota
17 May 2014 at 23:05
Mr Shyamsundar is partner in a firm with Mr Harish. His partner Mr Harish, took a vehicle loan from Tata Capitals to purchase a SUV vehicle. Mr Harish who had purchased the vehicle has not been able to pay instalments overdue for one year now.
1. Can Tata Capitals recover the loan taken by Mr Harish from his partner Mr Shyamsunadar?
2. What action can Tata Capitals take to recover the loan from Mr Harish?
3. Can a case be booked against Mr Harsish by Tata Capital (if yes what kind and which sections)
4. Is Mr Shyamsunadar in anyway liable as regards the liability of Mr Harish with Tata Capitals
Sonali
16 May 2014 at 10:50
We have filed an petition under section 397 & 398, and want to withdraw the petition, the bench officer has asked to file an application under unconditional withdrawal. I want to know the format in which the application will be file. kindly advise about the format. thanks
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Arbitration
Dear All
I want an opinion on the section 26 and section 09 of the Arbitration Act.
Breif is:
We are for respondent. During the proceedings of cross examination of respondent's first witness, Respondent moved an application U/s 26 of Arb. Act 1996 and request from the sole arbitrator for appointment of an independent expert to bring some facts of CRANE(machine) such as maker and capacity(Please note maker and capacity is in dispute between the parties since beginning) and this will enable the respondent to prove that the machinery supplied by petitioner is not as per the contract issued by respondent and therefore was idle at respondent yard and despite of request petitioner neither took back the crane nor refund the advance money and thereby claim of petitioner for rent is not valid. The reason behind the inspection was to bring on record about the manufacturer company, design & capacity of machine and to convince the arbitrator that the design, manufacturer and load lifting capacity is different from the contract issued to petitioner. We also mentioned that the dispute machine is having engine number, chasis number and inspection of the machine can ascertain about manufacturer, chasis number, engine number which can cross verify with manufacturer for the capacity of the machine, moreover this machine may also have some RTO number just like other vehicles. The Hon'ble arbitrator dismiss our application on the ground of
Delay,
Machines specification and particularly capacity can not be identified being the reason of old or wear and tear.
Because the machines look alike.
This inspection would not help the arbitrator to decide the dispute.
Now We want to challenge this order please suggest how..? Can we go under section 09 which says that "during arbitration proceedings a party can move to court for (c)..........................authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;
Your suggestions will be valuable to us.
Thanks in advance.