Pawan Patil
25 March 2010 at 15:00
Sir/ Madam,
I want know penalty cluse of U/s 138 of Dishonour of cheque.
I heart that if guitly is define then drawer has to pay twise amount of cheque
Can any one guide me on above?
Regards,Pawan
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 23:28
24.3.10.
After cheques bounced, I had filled u/s 138. I also filled on 18.12.09. a money recovery suit for Rs 31 lakhs, along with application under ord.39 for an injunction to restraint the respondents from selling or alienating their property. respondents are a registered partnership firm registered under partnership act of 1932, along with the four partners constituting the firm. I am the creditor of that firm to whom the cheques were issued in discharge of liability to the firm. The property is in the name of the firm. I was granted the injunction order on 11.03.10. However the respondents in the mean while during pendency of the matter sold the property, on 15.02.10. to Mr. Hari.
a) The property is 3650 m2.
b) The whole property was mortgaged to a bank from march 2002. up to 15.02.10. This liability was discharged by the purchaser Mr. Hari out of the purchase amount, and it is so mentioned in the sale deed.
c) The partners on 15.02.10 sold all 3650 m2 to this Mr. Hari
d) Now it has come to light that the partners of the firm had in the month of May 2009 while under mortgage to the bank w/o disclosure, sold 500 m2 of the same property, to Mr. Subash, and another 500 m2 to Mr. Raj. i.e. total 1000 m2.
e) Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj are close family friends.
f) by private agreement Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj decide to start some business together. Where Mr. Raj has come to an understanding with Mr. Subash that he will offer his 500 m2 as his portion of seed capital.
g) The partners now i.e.15.11.09 receive notice from their banker to pay up or this property will be attached.
h) The partners approach Mr. Subash, to sell the remainder of the property.
i) Mr. Subash keeping in mind the business understanding with Mr. Raj decides to purchase the whole property, and signs on 08.12.09. a MOU with the partners before a notary, on Rs.20/- stamp paper, for purchasing the entire property i.e. 3650 m2. for Rs. 70 lakhs, intending to cancel the earlier deeds of 500 m2 each with himself and Mr. Raj. So that he has one deed for the whole of the property of 3650 m2. paying a token amount of Rs. 60000/- by cheque at the time of signing the MOU. The cheque is not encashed but valid on date and in the hands of the partners. This MOU also contains a clause that an amount of 45 lakhs will be paid to the bank from the purchase price to get out of the Mortgage.
j) I come across this MOU, so I file a money recovery suit with an application for injunction to restraint the partners from selling the firms property.
k) The partners realizing that Mr. Subash is less willing to go ahead with the sale unless I am made party to the MOU and consequently settled, The partners quietly, sell the property to Mr. Hari. For Rs. 55 lakhs. 45 to the bank and 10 to the partners.
l) Mr. Hari expeditiously goes and takes a loan of one crore, mortgaging this property.
Result:
1. Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj have a sale deeds for 500 m2 each on an unpartitoned property out of the whole 3650 m2. dated May 09.
2. Mr. Subash has a MOU, amounting to a contract for sale for the entire property of
3650 m2.
3. Mr. Hari has a sale deed for the entire 3650 m2, which contains the 1000 m2 earlier sold to Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj.
5. The bank has a mortgage on the property, the sale deed of this property is encumbered by earlier deeds of Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj
4. I have an anfractuous injunction and a money recovery suit for Rs. 31 lakhs, against the partners who are now disappeared with 10 lakhs.
What is the recourse available to me?
What is the legal position of the others, i.e. Subash, Raj, Hari, The Bank
Will appreciate your advise and comments
rajvinder singh
24 March 2010 at 21:06
sir the suit was decreed by the lower court in 2000 in which i was oredred by the trail court to pay principle amount of rs 1,60,000 along with 6% interest from year 1995 to 2000 in this suit for recovery.
the opp. party went in appeal which modified the order of lower court and i was directed to pay the 3,55,000 after being calculated at rate of 24% interest from year 1995 to 2000 and further from year 2000 to 2009 the amonut to be calculated at rate of 24% per anum.
now i wana to prefer appeal to high court.i am under confusion on which amount i calculate the court fee to be affixed in high court whether it be 1,60,000 or 3,55,000 anlong with interest amount.
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 17:51
Dear Sir/Madam,
My colleague has received a summon from Metropolitan court under PSS Act due to ecs failure. Please advice on the proceedings on the above act and how can it affect him.
Thanks
sushil bhatt
24 March 2010 at 17:45
Dear All,
One bank based in Kanpur issued a Bank Guarantee (BG) in our name on behalf of our Sub Contractor (say Z) against perforamance of the contract between our company and the sub contractor. As per contract the Jurisdiction place is at New Delhi.
A dispute arisen between the parties in between and we were eligible to invoke the BG as per contract. Z immdtly moved an application u/s 9 of A&C Act before ADJ court, Kanpur against the issuing bank and impleaded us as a party to restrain both the respondents from releasing and invoking the BG and accordingly got interim injuction as prayed for before 4-5 months back. But the ADJ court is not taking-up the matter properly and adjourning the matter from one date to next date since then.
Now what way we should adopt to get the BG invoked.
1. Should we challenge the matter in High Court strictly on jurisdiction ground? or;
2. Should we pray for directions from High Court to ADJ court to dispose off the matter within a time frame issued by High Court?
Shahzad Kanchwala
24 March 2010 at 17:44
Dear Sir/Madam
I would like to know abt the PSS Act, 2007 & Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
1. Is it similar to each other?
2. How is it related to each other?
3. What are the consequence of the PSS act?
4. What would be the pointers of discussion on the above acts.
Regards
SZ
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 17:15
Dear Sir,
My property is going for SRA Development. The developer has agreed for 269 sq. ft. for all the 82 tenants. He is also giving extra FSI of 70 to all the tenants. The builder is not giving in writing transit camp that he would provide. The committee has some select members (the builder had agreed to some of their terms) he is also providing some extra 100 sq.ft. for persons who has around 250 sq.ft. (most of the tenants are occupying a area of 180 sq. ft.). I have some 225 sq.ft. of area, he is not considering to give out anything to those persons who have less than 250 sq.ft. What should I do.
The area of the plot is 1500 sq.mts. Should I take the matter with the SRA Authorities.
Hope you can guide me
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 16:15
Civil question
If someone has given services to someone for example tent house, lightning facility on various occasion. The person to whom the services has given for example marriage hall owner is not paying him for the services offered by the plaintiff then what remedy is available.
Notice for what will be served?
Pls reply as soon as possible.
There is no written agreement between them. No evidence to prove this fact except the labors who were working on behalf of the plaintiff.
In this case the plaintiff has offered services like lightning, flowering, catering, tent etc to the defendant marriage hall.
Legal notice to be served under what title.
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 15:28
I( Vendee-DHR) filed a petition u/s 5 A of the act for regulation of an alienation, on the basis of a compromise decree, obtained in a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale(un registered) before the Mandal Revenue Officer. And after due enquiry and also after following the due procedure, the MRO has issued a certificate to that effect on my favour.
When the matter was carried before the Joint Collector (Revisional Authority) by other side who contended that “no notice was served on them before passing the orders and also further contended that the said DHR has failed to approach the trial court for registration of the sale deed and thus the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the case”. The Joint collector has dismissed the Revision Petition. Further he also relied upon the Rule 27(4) of the Rules with regard to implementation of court decrees.
As against the said order, the matter was carried by other side, before the High Court (Single Judge) by way of Writ Petition and the same was also dismissed.
When the matter came up before Division Bench of High Court, it was contented that
1. No regularization of alienation even based on a decree obtained in a suit for specific performance can be ordered under Section 5 of the Act.
2. An agreement of sale cannot be considered to be a document of “transfer” or “alienation”
and accordingly passed orders against me. And now the matter is pending before Supreme Court carried in a SLP.
The Act is as follows:-
Section 5-A Regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alinee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
Rule 27 (4) of A.P.Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules 1989:-
Whenever a court decree about acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper or by oral purchase is received form court or presented to the Mandal Revenue Officer for implementing and incorporating changes in the Record of rights and Pattedar pass Book, the Mandal Revenue officer shall incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattedar Pass Book, based on court decree only after collection of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale price of the land or market value of the land whichever is higher. If the person seeking execution of court decree claims that he had already paid proper and adequate stamp duty in the court and produces certificate issued by the court to this effect and other evidence to the satisfaction of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall demand and collect only registration fee and incorporate changes in the record of Rights and Pattedar pass Books, If the decree is received or produced by or before a Registration officer or other Officers, these officers shall immediately send these decrees to the concerned Mandal Revenue Office for necessary action.
1.Application filed against section 5-a of R.o.R act. But it should have filed as per 27(4) of R.o.R act. Does my case can be considered as per 27(4) or it will be dissmissed as per section 5-a.?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Date of adjournment of the case.
Respected Experts,
The Supreme Court has posted our SLP in summer vacation. So how could I find out the date of its posting, as it is not updated in net.
Plz.clarify.