Member (Account Deleted)
12 March 2009 at 10:14
In my opinion to recover the credit card debt a bank have to file civil suit for recovery.
My question is if the card defaulter have not paid anything since last 4 yr can bank institute suit now?
what is the limitation period in this regard? Any decided case reference?
Prachi
12 March 2009 at 05:45
hi all
can a lawyer in employment send a legal notice to a defaulter on behalf of the employer?
Or does a practicing lawyer needs to be hired to send a legal notice on behalf of the employer?
Member (Account Deleted)
11 March 2009 at 15:00
I have filed a consumer case in person. Date fixed after admission hearing was for “appearance and S/R”. On this date I have showed the forum the A/D card as proof of sending notice and copy of complaint to the opposite party and opposite party on the same day appeared and submitted their reply. One copy of such reply was also given to me. Next date is for filing “Affidavit in chief” the presiding officer of the court told me that I have to submit my objection against the reply submitted by the opposite party if any.
Please guide me about what I have to do exactly on the next date?
What is Affidavit in chief?
What should be the format of my objection against the reply submitted by the opposite party?
Ramasubbu
11 March 2009 at 00:38
I have credit card unsettled amount of around Rs.50,000.The credit card was issued in 1998.The last payment I made was on May 2000.I left the country in 2001.After that there was no communication between me & the credit card bank.In 2004 the bank contacted my father and threatened him that I will be arrested when I come back to India.I am out of country now.
If I come back to India, will I be arrested for non-payment?
Thanks
Ramasubbu
Ramasubbu
10 March 2009 at 21:31
The credit card company filed pre-litigation suit in Lok Adalat for pending balance.
As I am in different country now,What will happen If I don't attend the court date?
Thanks
Ram
Ratnakar Sapkal
10 March 2009 at 19:15
Banker failed to send notice to me & broked My locker for non payment of locker rent. whether it amounts deficency of service & I Claim damage charges to banker.
imthiyaz
10 March 2009 at 00:03
Sir, Our muslim partition suit is pending in Final decree proceedings with 11 decree holders as sharers, AS often the case in muslim partiion suits,there are large number of legal heirs of 11 decree holders close to 200,
The preliminary decree is dated year 1960, Final decree proceedings petition is filed in the year 1989 which is still pending and has adjourned for hearing next month,
After the preliminary decree some of the defendants have sold many of the suit properties without knowledge of plaintiffs, now in this pending Final decree proceedings, some how these purchasers has been made parties wrongly even though they are not bonafide purchasers.
Some of the defendants and plaintiffs legal heirs has colluded with each other and have struck as compromise deal with one of the non bonafide purchaser without the consent of court and one of the decree holder daughter who is and LR of plaintiff , and now they are telling to court they have done compromise and this survey number may be removed from decree,
for which one plaintiff daughter has objected as she have already filed any Inter locutary application to strike out LR’s of her brother who are orphaned grand children who were wrongly added as parties while filing final decree petition, As per Mohameddan law orphaned grand children are not entitle for any share ,
when there is a dispute for a share of a plaintiff that to strike out LR’s, Judge wants to go ahead with compromise even though there is an objection to compromise , and also without disposing of this Inter locutary application, According to judge LR’s cannot be strike out in final decree proceedings it is only to follow preliminary decree and personal law cannot applied here,
But these orphaned grandchildren were brought on record when filing for final decree petition as there father predeceased the decree holder after preliminary decree ie in 1976, as the original plaintiff was alive at the time of preliminary decree she died in 1986, hence there is no question of going against preliminary decree, But the judge is arguing that these LR’s cannot be striked out in final decree proceedings,
As per my knowledge it can be done using Order 1 rule 10(2) to strike out LR’s at any stage of proceedings. our advocate has done one mistake by filing an application in only 151 cpc as he was little unsure at the time of filing now he says that is not a problem as only prayer is looked upon in an IA not provision of law, Please help how to proceed as we want to strike out thse LR’s who are not entitle for share, Final decree proceedings is adjourned fornext month.
2 )Judge cannot go ahead for compromise when there is an objection by any one of decree holder, judge cannot force, is it right.
imthiyaz
09 March 2009 at 23:22
Sir, Our muslim partition suit is pending in Final decree proceedings with 11 decree holders as sharers, AS often the case in muslim partiion suits,there are large number of legal heirs of 11 decree holders,
Some of the defendants and plaintiffs ohave colluded with each other without the knowledge and authorisation of some of legal heirs of decree holders and have executed a panchayati fariqhat with notary signature for some of the decree schedule properties and has applied for Khata change to their names on the basis of this paper without the knowledge of honorable court in which final decree proceedings is pending.
These fraud persons are running a case in the Tahsildar court for khata change for which proceedings are adjourned for orders in next hearing, I attended the previous hearing that Tahsildar is arguing even though the case is pending in final decree procedings for the schedule properties for which khata change has been applied, Tahsildar is ready to change the khata, he may be under some influence, I have filed an petition in taluk office and has taken an acknowledgement that khata for these properties must not be changed as still the case is pending.
I spoke to my advocate he says, we cannot take action against tahsildar or revenue authorities till he writes an Order and also we cannot make him party to apply for stay in court,
We want to stay the proceedings in Tahsildar court to dismiss the case till the final decree proceedings is completed, I spoke to Revenue authority, he says Tahsildar has dicriminitary power to change Khata u can cancel it again when the final decree proceedings is completed , But we don’t want to wait till fdp is completed we want to stay the tahsildar court proceedings,
How can it be done…
WILLIAM JOHN BOSE.K
09 March 2009 at 10:44
Can a Forigner be sued by an indian or sue and indian in any indian court
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
compromise against decree holder objection
Dear All,
In our muslim family partition suit which is decree back in 1970, with 11 decree holders,
And the suit is pending in Final decree proceedings now and is adjourned for next month,
After the preliminary decree, some of the defendants have sold the decree schedule properties with out the knowledge of plaintiffs, some of the non bonafide purchasers are somehow made as parties in the pending final decree proceedings, now some of the plaintiffs LR’s and defendants have done some out of court compromise of one of the decree schedule properties and has come to court with a joint memo to remove that particular survey number from decree as compromise has been done, for which one of LR of one of the plaintiff has objected in the court thru objections memo, that she is not interested in going for such a compromise which is not fair,
But the court is forcing us to go for compromise by saying u alone objecting for compromise remaining all LR’s of defendants and plaintiff have agreed,
Does law permits the judge to remove one of the suvey number of decree schedule properties from decree, as the compromise has been done even though there is an objection from one of the decree holder plaintiff Legal heir.
Or court cannot give go ahead for compromise until a there is a objection from even a single LR of decree holder.