Anonymous
17 August 2010 at 18:58
Dear Sir,
We have received a purcahse order form a pvt. ltd company. During execution there was a delay by 02 weeks.we have properly communicated with the customer about the delay. Now the customer has sent order cancelation and he is not taking the material. And if we follow he is blindly telling quality problem which is not there and without inspecting the material.
Kindly help us since the value of the order is huge.
Namitabh Kothari (9930992660)
16 August 2010 at 11:09
Dear all,
I have a client who has just go a small funding from investors.
He will probably start with authorized capital of 1lakh or 2lakh or so.
He has to give 1.5% equity to a contractor on a vested basis of 2.5 years. But this 1.5% is to be off the post-debenture maturity value of the company. Not the starting 1 lakh.
The debentures mature after 1 year. When he has to issue shares to the convertible debenture holders.
So how do we go about legally making sure that the contractor gets 1.5% of the post-debenture-maturity value and not the current value?
What type of agreement / document would be required to be prepared to handle the above situation?
regards
Namitabh
namitabh.law@gmail.com
9930 992 660
Anonymous
14 August 2010 at 19:52
I had supplied material to one party but he has failed to make the payment inspite of several reminders.
What can I do.
Puneet Advani
13 August 2010 at 16:48
Hi, I am Puneet from India and have a query about Wire Transfer. We are doing a business with a company in Togo and have done some wire transfer however, the Bank is refusing to pay the business partner due to which we are occurring a huge loss could you please suggest what we can do in tn this case...
They are asking to pay $58
sudhir
13 August 2010 at 10:33
A Settlor wishes to settle property for the benefit of a named beneficiary by executing a deed of trust. Is it mandatory or obligatory that this trust is to be registered?
VIJAY K. TEOTIA
12 August 2010 at 14:21
whether the said act has been notified or not as per section 97 to repeal the existing Prevention of food adulteration act 1954.
Daksh
12 August 2010 at 09:45
Dear All,
Kindly enumerate with the help of case law and legal provisions that in the eventuality of contradiction amongst the provisions of SEBI ACT and THE COMPANIES ACT which one will prevail in any judicial proceedings.
Best Regards
Daksh
VIJAY K. TEOTIA
11 August 2010 at 21:09
In a personal bank loan to an individual, company is the guarantor and an individual had signed as witness. what is the liability of witness in case there is default in payment. how the bank can recover its dues. what procedure bank has to follow for recovery.
amritinder
11 August 2010 at 18:57
A property outside municipal limits with permanent building construvted is actually used as commercial building (ware house /office) on a land which is agricultural land as per tittle deed but as per report from revenue officer the same has been classified as non cultivable land there is no cultivation in the land and the land is used purely as commercial with NOC from village panchayat for construction of building and commercial usage No approval from local body not from town planning department
In this circumstance, the owner of the property gets loan from bank and he mortgaged the same property as security to the loan. Subsequently the loan become NPA. In this circumstance the bank can attach the property under SARFAESI, even though property is classified as agricultural land as per tittle deed , there is no cultivation and there is building and factory. If any bank favorable judgement of Supreme Court, kindly give me.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Section 138 N I Act
Dear Members
one of my seniors mr. Prem Jha told me about a judgment which may be useful for someone. Hence I am placing the same before your good selves.
The Supreme Court has ruled that criminal proceedings for issuing a cheque without sufficient balance in the account would be valid only if it is drawn for discharging a debt or liability. If it is issued to satisfy the terms of a compromise or settlement, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be used to proceed against the drawer of the cheque.
The court stated so in the case, Lalit Kumar v/s State of Uttar Pradesh. Earlier, two cheques were issued by the directors of a company and they were prosecuted. Meanwhile, there was a settlement under which Rs 5 lakh was to be paid to the creditor. However, this cheque also bounced, leading to another prosecution.
The Allahabad High Court rejected their plea to quash the proceedings. But on appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the latter cheque was issued in terms of a compromise agreement and not to satisfy any debt or payment due. Therefore, the second instance would not invite prosecution under Section 138. The high court judgment was set aside.
ragards