Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 10:30
Dear Sir,
A lease deed pertaining to the property situated in hauz khas new delhi was registered.Subsequently upon negotiations the landlord has agreed to reduce the rental and all other terms will remain the same.
Please advise whether to go ahead with fresh lease deed or the supplement can be signed by both the parties which can be made part and parcel of the agreement.
Regards,
Arunav pankaj
Goodboy.50
18 May 2010 at 09:52
Opinion of learned experts of forum is needed. It has been experienced by a number of firearm license applicants, especially in states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal that the licensing authorities are verbally asking to purchase National Savings Certificates worth Rs 50,000 per firearm endorsement on license. Apart from NSC, they also ask for amount towards red cross etc. If one does not comply, then practically it becomes next to impossible to obtain firearm license, since licensing authorities have practically unlimited discretionary powers under Arms Act 1959 to deny, delay or cause various kinds of hardships. It appears they are exploiting the need of self defense of people and kind of blackmailing and forcing them to comply. In my opinion, at least they are trying to circumvent Indian Arms Act 1959
CHAPTER III - PROVISIONS RELATING TO LICENCES,
14. Refusal of licences
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.
Are they trying to cleverly bypass this clause by asking to deposit money(movable property) after the grant of license? What is practical solution to this problem, since nowhere their "demand" is in writing?
Please read the following to get complete picture of the problem as experienced by people at the following: http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9669&start=0 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9434&start=0
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 06:38
Dear sir,
Observation made in a judgment of an HC is ,
“It is well settled that there in no invariable rule that in all cases of disagreement between description by area and specification of boundary, the latter must prevail. It is well settled that it is a matter for examination in each case as to what was the intention of the parties and the understanding between them at the time of entering into the contract. Reference may be made to the case of Ganga Sahu v. Kanhu Lal Marwari, AIR 1933 Pat 60.”
Now how “the intention of the parties and the understanding between them at the time of entering into the contract.” Can be proved? Will the recital portion of the sale deed, where it is clearly described/mentioned and some witnesses is sufficient? Or any other thing is reqd.
Thanks and regds.
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 00:20
Dear Sir,
I am Suman and I have pursued my B.tech(eie) from Kakatiya university and working in networking field now and I am planning to pursue LLB in padala Rami Reddy college , Hyderabad. How will you rate that college??Any better college or university than that in Hyderabad??
And One more issue, we have sold a land to our cousins with same surname and we bought their land almost at the same price.But they are at different locations.Then we started constructing our house, then some people with Notary documents have come and dismantled our property saying that land belongs to us.We filed FIR and many things happend later.But later we came to know that this land belongs to other people only and not our cousins.The major mistake is change of new and old survey numbers of the same plot.There we made mistake and the land which we exchanged to them in our village , they made it registered on their cousin sister , who is married. Now how can we get back the loss of land money their. The land money which we sold(cos our land is genuine),and loss made by other party.Please kindly guide me and help me getting our money back. Though we were well positioned due to this incident we are shocked and unable to balance .financially.
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 00:17
Dear Sir,
I am Suman and I have pursued my B.tech(eie) from Kakatiya university and working in networking field now and I am planning to pursue LLB in padala Rami Reddy college , Hyderabad. How will you rate that college??Any better college or university than that in Hyderabad??
And One more issue, we have sold a land to our cousins with same surname and we bought their land almost at the same price.But they are at different locations.Then we started constructing our house, then some people with Notary documents have come and dismantled our property saying that land belongs to us.We filed FIR and many things happend later.But later we came to know that this land belongs to other people only and not our cousins.The major mistake is change of new and old survey numbers of the same plot.There we made mistake and the land which we exchanged to them in our village , they made it registered on their cousin sister , who is married. Now how can we get back the loss of land money their. The land money which we sold(cos our land is genuine),and loss made by other party.Please kindly guide me and help me getting our money back. Though we were well positioned due to this incident we are shocked and unable to balance .financially.
sunil gavaskar
17 May 2010 at 21:37
Dear Experts,
I am Sunil and am buying a property-plot:22 which has the following title:
Few plots in a layout ( including plot:22) are owned by lady for past 40 years. In 2006 she had executed a WILL, where she mentioned that the plot:22 should go to her daughter after his life interest.
Suddenly, in 2007 she gifted ( Settlement Deed ) the same property-plot:22 to the same daughter's son i.e her grandson.
Now I am buying the plot from the grandson. Both mother and grandmother(age:81) are alive now.
Now the question is:
1. Does it require to cancel a particular a schedule ( i.e plot:22) as in mentioned in the WILL before gifting the same schedule to some one else?
2. Or is the particular schedule is cancelled automatically when gift deed is executed ??
3. Is it require to get signed from the grandmother and his mother as Witness , while I buy from his grandson?
Thanks for your help..
sunil gavaskar
17 May 2010 at 21:31
Dear Experts,
I am Sunil and am buying a property-plot:22 which has the following title:
Few plots in a layout ( including plot:22) are owned by lady for past 40 years. In 2006 she had executed a WILL, where she mentioned that the plot:22 should go to her daughter after his life interest.
Suddenly, in 2007 she gifted ( Settlement Deed ) the same property-plot:22 to the same daughter's son i.e her grandson.
Now I am buying the plot from the grandson. Both mother and grandmother(age:81) are alive now.
Now the question is:
1. Does it require to cancel a particular a schedule ( i.e plot:22) as in mentioned in the WILL before gifting the same schedule to some one else?
2. Or is the particular schedule is cancelled automatically when gift deed is executed ??
3. Is it require to get signed from the grandmother and his mother as Witness , while I buy from his grandson?
Thanks for your help..
piku
17 May 2010 at 19:43
sir,
before 20 years back ,a plot of about 33 decimal was possessed by an amicable settelment between my father and my opponent,s father.
but now my opppnent is forcibly trying to take possession over the plot.so we have filed a petition and got injunction over the plot. but opponent is making structure and cutting trees violating the injunction. we have informed the local police station regarding the matter but polic is not taking any step.so since opponent is violating the injunction order ,what step should i take.
plz help
thanks to all
Anonymous
17 May 2010 at 18:43
My grandfather had purchased land , the funding of land and construction over same is done by my father and grand father .
My grand father had 3 sons . After construction he handed over ground floor to my father . Since 1973 we are residing there . My grandfather expired in 1973 , leaving behind grandmother and 3 sons.
The propery was never transfered to any one after his death . My father expired in 1994 and grandmother in 1999 , and one of my uncle expired in 2004 . The property still stands in grandfather name .
Now my uncle and aunt has applied for there share in Estate office to tune of 35% and 35% each and ours 30% , on ground that after death of my father the share again split in our family and my grandmother .
We have renovated the groundfloor , and my other uncles family is getting rent for 1st floor alternative months.
pls advice is our family share is only 30% .What is provision of oral partion alraedy happened 40 yrs back and till date no one had claimed any thing .
Is oral mutation happened in 1972 valid , as no one has claimed any thing after that, now start claiming that earlier partion not correct.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Sarfaesi 13(2)- a/c active within 180 days next to NPA-?able
I had a CC limit of 122 lakhs. My account went bad and I could not service my interest & principal for 107 days. My account is declared as NPA on the 90th day. On the 108th day, I service the interest in full & principal (part). Sarfaesi 13(2) issued and subsequent possession u/s 13(4) taken by affixing notice. Now, the Bank issues a 'Fresh Notice' u/s 13(2). The Bank has not withdrawn the first notice or has not re-conveyed possession of my property. Prior to the 107th day, my account has been active and within the sanction limit with many transactions. I have already made an application before the DRT and have taken back the application for correction and resubmitting. In the meantime, I have come across a judgment. It was on an Appeal filed in 2004. Can anyone tell me if there has been any amendment or further ruling of the Supreme Court that has any implication on that ruling. Pls help.
Asha T. Ruia v. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd., IV (2006) BC
(DRT Mumbai)
“ Coming to the all important issue of NPA, it may be at the outset noted that the notice u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act states that account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2003. Mr. Colabawala, learned Counsel for the applicant has straightaway submitted that the issue as to whether the account was NPA on the aforesaid date was decided against the Bank by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 25 of 2004 filed by present applicants and two others. My attention is drawn to Para Nos 18 to 21 of the judgement delivered by this Tribunal on 21.9.2004 holding that the account could not be classified as NPA within six months next before the issuance of notice (20.3.2004) under Section 13(2) which was germane to that appeal. The Tribunal had observed that there were credit entries in the account between 28.11.2003 and 29.12.2003 in the aggregate of Rs. 55 lakh. Upon that, the Tribunal quashed above referred notice and consequently restrained the Bank from taking any action under SARFAESI Act on basis of said notice. Mr. Vilas Naik, learned Counsel for the Bank has pointed out that this Tribunal in operative part ‘C’ of the judgment had clarified that the Bank would be at liberty to issue fresh notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. In reply, Mr. Colabawala submitted and in my view rightly that the Tribunal had given the liberty for removal of doubt, if any, in the minds of the parties to the effect that the account could never be classified as NPA. I also find substance in his further submissions that by said clarification, this Tribunal did not allow reopening and reagitation of the issue of classification of the account as NPA as on 30.11.2003 on the same set of the facts and issued notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act”
“ Even if above aspect is for a while kept aside and the issue as to whether the classification of the account as NPA as on 30.11.2003 is proper or not and whether the notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act is legal and valid is re-examined, it would be seen that the Bank is hopelessly placed. It may be reiterated in this connection that there are several payments made within six months of the classification of the account as NPA on 30.11.2003. In other words, it is not that this is a straightforward case of the interest and/or installment of principal remaining overdue for a clear period of more than 180 days. The same was the case in Appeal No. 25 of 2004. In the notice impugned in that matter also the Bank went on to simply state that the account is classified as NPA without bothering to clarify as to how the account could become NPA irrespective of significant payments within six months of issuance of notice. This Tribunal had observed in Para No. 19 of Appeal No. 25 of 2004 that the Bank ought to have elaborately stated the facts as to how the account was treated as NPA irrespective of credit entries within 180 days of the issuance of notice. In Para No. 21 of the judgment, this Tribunal went on to point out the importance of the statutory notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act. It was observed that the notice, in case like that, should give particulars of the Bank’s claim in details from which a person should be in a position to readily know the default and should provide opportunity for complying, without reasonable controversy. The observation in said judgment clearly is that one should not be required to do forensic examinations and analysis of the notice of the statutory notice for finding out whether classification of the account as NPA was proper. It seems that the Bank has not taken any leaf from the above observation and has not learnt a lesson therefrom. The Bank did not bother to send the chart (Exh. IV to the reply) with notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act to the Borrower details as to how the account was classified as NPA. In these circumstances, I hold that the impugned notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act being omnibus, is bad in law”.