SHIESTA007
04 September 2010 at 19:52
During the pendency of Writ petitions there has been fradulent sale transactions.
1] 17th April 2010, the notices were issued to the respondents.
2] 22nd May 2010, there has been hurriedly and cunningly the sale deed was executed by the respondent, who was the contesting party to the case.
3] 24th May and 25th May there was an interim order of staying the proceedings of lower court. Even at this time the respondent did not utter the word that he has sold the subject property which is running in the court.
4] 17th June 2010, the court made final orders and even at this time the respondent hid the facts that he has sold the suit property.
Can we initiate Contempt of Court against the respondents for suppressing the material facts of the case during the pendency of writ?
s.loganathan
04 September 2010 at 19:10
A firm registered in Tamilnadu with the Registrar of Firms. Renewal lapsed for more than 3 years. Firm engaged with money-lending business. Can firm now enjoy special provisions enacted by legislature u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act? Would the debt so arising out of the money-lending by the firm be a 'legally enforceable debt'?
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 17:58
in haryana rent act a tenant in commercial property(shop) and he purchased a shop close to this shop after 6 years of tenancy and the shop is about 4-5 times of the shop on rent. Is this a ground for eviction and how strong. How to prove this ground. Which sections are applicable and if you can give some citations.
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 16:57
Respected Experts I humbly invite your valuable answer to the following important question, as the set of Terms and Conditions unsigned by the Credit Card Holder.
1) Whether the Terms and Conditions apply to and regulate the provision of Credit Card facilities by any bank?. Please be noted other wise to say that the terms and conditions - regulate the provision of Credit Card.
2) Whether the printed Terms and Conditions can be used as documentary evidence in law in the absence of signature of the Card Holder?.
3) What is the legal position of this terms and conditions?.
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 16:34
We were tenants of a charitable trust residing in a dalipiladated buildings requiring urgent repairs. Trust has sold off the building 2006 to a notorious builder and they are neither repairing the buildings nor allowing us to repair them at our cost in spite of our several applications to BMC to grant permission u/s 499 of BMC Act.
Our contempt petion of 2009 against BMC is pending and being delayed to protect corrupt BMC officers. We now have following queries with experts:
1) What can be done to see that the judgement is not delayed as BMC has admitted to contempt of order passed in our petition 2028 of 2008 by not granting the permission.
2) Given the criminal mind set of the new land lords they may engineer the collapse of building by foul means. In such eventuality will the tenants have any kind of rights to their rented premises.
Kindly give serious thought and advice suitably.
varun
04 September 2010 at 14:31
Hi,
i just want help from all of you that my father want me to gift me some amount of money in cash as a last wish of my mother , and he is obeying the same wish of my mother, but my brother wife want me to sign a document which says that after receiving this amount i do not have any right in all properties of my father in future (property value more than 4 crores and they are giving 10 lacs) does any such document diffuse my right in my fathers property .help me what should i do any suggestion .
thanking you
varun
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 13:29
Can Court Grant TI when the if the plaintiffs file a siut for mere partition and are not in Physical Possession of Suit Schedule Properties by not disclosing the facts though the Plaintiffs have received their shares in the FAMILY Properties by Family Partition long back and sold the Properties of their shares to third parties
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 12:13
Supreme Court upholds Securitisation Act. The Supreme Court on April 8 upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act
TAJA NEWS found that DRT dont have right to auction any prpoerty. A verdit in supreme court on thursday 2/9/10 Is it true? if true how caniget total judgement?
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 09:01
sir,
Please inform case details, where cell phone recordings or voice recordings are used as evidence
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
pension
can a government servant be personally liable for non payment of pension dues.As the government has already made notification to calculate the dues and release them ,the concern officer is unnecessarily delaying the matter . Can compensation be claimed from that concerned officer.