Ashwani kumar
21 June 2013 at 19:02
Sir my mediclaim is denied by the insurance co. saying that pre-existing deseases not covered before completion of 4 years while 46 months have been completed to my policy inception.
My policy was started in march 2009
my pre desease was existed in Feb 2009.
I took the policy which was covering all pre existing deseases from day 1(for age below 35 yr) according to the proposal of the company. That was the reason i did not mention my pre existing deases in the proposal form. In feb 2009 there was internal bleeding in my stomach which was cleared by the doctors through endoscopy. I got again bledding in the month of January 2013 for which i am demanding the claim. Pls help me to overcome the problem of mediclaim
SNEHA VAIDYA
21 June 2013 at 18:48
please give tips for Argument for Dhara 37 recovery case.
Sneha Vaidya
jatin sharma
21 June 2013 at 16:22
hi,
the petitioner file a petition in MACT tribunal for death claim of his wife.
I am defending the insurer company in this case.my Q is,the vehicle NO. which is mention in the FIR of accident case and in above said petition is not match with the insurance certificate which is submitted by the party.
so is there any way to dismiss or struck off insurer company name from the above said petition.
thanks
Dharmaraj
21 June 2013 at 14:57
Dear All,
Kindly advice whether using bad words or abusing someone without taking anybody's name in public is crime.
Ritika singh
21 June 2013 at 10:59
1) i am a bank. A company has debts both against me and an asset reconstruction company(ARC), though title deeds on same property secured with me only.
2)the ARC wants to proceed under sarfaesi and is requesting me to release the deeds.
3) the IRC has proposed to give me my share of debt from surplus sale proceeds of assets that is will receive.
4)is such a proposition enforceable in law?
can a secured creditor get surplus from teh sale proceeds than what is due to him? is surplus to be returned to borrower by any chance?is such an agrrement possible between me and teh bank.
some light on the above propositions will be very helpful.
rohitkumar65
21 June 2013 at 10:00
Dear Experts,
Succession certificate have been granted in favour of two persons. Subsequently prior to withdrawal of money from bank one of the persons name in succession certificate died. Now, what should the bank do? Should they give entire amount to the person alive ? Please suggest.
ckanta
21 June 2013 at 00:31
Hi sir,
I have filed the recovery suit against the defendant and he has already given WS and we have already filed replication. after that he has been proceeded as exparte as he was not appearing on the dates in the mean while he got expired and we have filed amended memo of parties to make the Lr's as defendants. now the court has allowed LR's application of cross examination of the plaintiff. however their lawyer has appeared on last date and instead of doing cross examination of the plaintiff asked to file WS on behalf of LR.s. and Court has allowed him to file it on next date of hearing. How he has filed WS again as his father who was orginal defendant has already filed it. Please help me with some judgements so that we can argue on the next date regarding filing of WS again by LR.s. I believe LRs step in to the shoes of defendant only and they can proceed from the stage when the Defendant expired. Please suggest on urgent basis.
Thanks for your support.
Narayanan
20 June 2013 at 20:10
Sirs,
Children of the Original respondent in an eviction case(brought as LRs) have filed Revision before the High Court to set-aside the order and decree of lower courts granting eviction petition. The contentions are
1. Eviction Petition has no proper description of property in schedule to identify the property
2). Present LR’s are not in possession
3) Present LRs are not proper parties as they were not in possession of the subject matter
4). Alleged Land Lord because of mis described schedule in the decree may evict the children in the guise of Execution who are residing in the adjacent property which is different property.
The Revision Petition is pending disposal( notice of Revision Proceedings in High Court is not yet issued to the alleged land lord due to lack of address).
The Question is mean while if the alleged landlord files execution case and obtains Delivery warrant,
1). Will the Revision Petition in High Court survive.
2). Will Revision Petition in High Court be continued if the Children of Original Respondent files obstruction Petition in Execution Court in case bailiff comes to vacate them from their possession?
Please clarify
anupam sharma
20 June 2013 at 19:52
can auction be ordered in execution of accident claim case if appeal against the main order is pending in high court but no stay granted?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Appiicability of res-judicata in maintenance case under section 125 of c.p.c.
In the year 2009 the Wife filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband claiming maintenance and after submission of written statement the wife withdraw case on the ground that, she left the jurisdiction of this court and accordingly the Court allowed her prayer and passed order that,"the case is dismissed on withdrawal"
Subsequently in the year 2011 the wife again filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the same Court claiming maintenance.
Now it is relevant to mention here that, the contents, averments as well as cause of action are as it is like previous petition.
In cross-examination wife admitted that, after withdrawal of previous petition some new facts was come out and at the time of argument I took a plea of Res-judicata on the ground of same cause of action and previous petition is dismissed after filing of written statement but the court allowed maintenance to wife.
Now i preferred Revision against the the Judgment & Order. I am standing for the Husband.
Now my question is ;
1. Whether in this situation the principle of Res-judicata is applicable.
2. Whether after two years the wife can filed same petition on same cause of action.
3. Whether there is any provision of law or case law is available to substantiate my point.