HNN
23 November 2012 at 14:41
Can a 100% foreign company file a suit against an Indian under employment related matters of dispute. A friend of mine was recruited by foreign company and within a month the employment contract was terminated due to some legal issues from the previous employer of the person. Now the previous employer wants to sue the foreign company, and the person is asked to give statement accusing the foreign company of using the person to obtain information and later on dumping him. The person is now under fear. Can a foreign company file suit in India. Kindly help advise and reply to: helptosaveme@gmail.com
surya
23 November 2012 at 09:53
NOTE IN O.S.NO.103 OF 1999 RELATING TO LAND AT YOSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD.
1. One Uppari Ramaiah was the protected tenant in respect of Ac.14.06 Gts. of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.65, 66, 68 to 74, Yousufguda. On 8.2.1961, Uppari Ramaiah sold 20086 Sq.Yds. of land in Sy.Nos.66, 68 and 69 from out of the above said land to one Mir Riyasat Ali Khan under the registered sale deed dated 8.2.1961. On 1.5.1961, Uppari Ramaiah purchased Ac.14-06 gts. of land from his landlady Kaneez Fatima under a registered sale deed. On 5.5.1961 Uppari Ramaiah was issued a certificate under Section 38(6) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Agricultural Tenancy Act, for short the Act. On 21.11.1961, Mir Riyasat Ali Khan sold 8866 Sq.Yds. of land in Sy.Nos.66 Part, 68 Part and 69 hereinafter referred to as the land in question, to Neelakanteswaramma, Defendant No.31 in the above suit and N.Chandra Ramalingaiah under a registered sale deed. The above sale deeds dated 8.2.1961 and 21.11.1961 are void, as permission is not obtained under Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act was repealed on 18.3.1969. Validation of void sales under Section 50-B of the Act was extended up to 31.3.1972 and the above sale deeds were not validated. Therefore, they are void. Further, as on the date of execution of the Sale Deed dated 08.02.1961, Uppari Ramaiah did not have any title to sell the land in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali Khan.
2. Uppari Ramaiah died in the year 1963 and his wife Uppari Muthamma and his nine children were his legal heirs. Subsequently Uppari Muthamma and some of the children died. The legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah are arrayed as Defendants 1 to 18 and 42 to 44 in the above suit, hereinafter referred to as the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah. After Chandra Ramalingaiah expired in the year 1973, his share in the above said land fell to the share of three of his legal heirs. Neelakanteswaramma and the legal heirs of Chandra Ramalingaiah are arrayed as Defendants 31 to 37 in the above suit, hereinafter referred to as the purchasers. In the year 1980-81, mutation was effected in favour of legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah. Their names were also shown in the Pahani Patrika and Faisal Patti for the years 1980-81. They also paid land revenue for the years 1978-81. On 27.01.1982, legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Godavari Cooperative House Building Society, Defendant No.19 in the above suit, hereinafter referred to as the Society. Thereafter on 28.05.1984 the Society assigned the land in favour of M.V.Rayaparaju and nine others. Subsequently, two of the assignees expired. M.V.Rayaparaju and nine others including the legal representatives of the deceased assignees are arrayed as Defendants 21 to 30, 38 to 41 and 45 in the above suit, hereinafter referred to as the assignees.
3. On 22.02.1989, the purchasers filed Land Grab Case No.32 of 1989, hereinafter referred to as LGC, on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, for short the LG Act. The said case was filed against the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, one N.Srinivasa Rao, the plaintiff in the above suit, hereinafter referred to as N.Srinivasa Rao, who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and five others who are said to be the purchasers of a part of the land in question from N.Srinivasa Rao. In the LGC, the purchasers contended that the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah are attempting to grab the land in question in collusion with N.Srinivasa Rao by creating various GPAs, Agreements, Sale Deeds etc.
4. On 22.02.1989, the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah filed their counter stating that they are the owners of the land in question, that the Sale Deeds dated 08.02.1961 and 21.11.1961 are void, as no permission under Section 47 of the Act was obtained and further no validation was obtained under Section 50-B of the Act and therefore, the two Sale Deeds are void, that Uppari Ramaiah was a blind and an illiterate man and he was deceived by Mir Riyasat Ali Khan, that N.Srinivasa Rao is not their GPA, that they made a publication in Andhra Patrika Newspaper on 16.10.1980, warning the public not to deal with N.Srinivasa Rao in respect of the land in question, that the alleged GPAs/Agreements were cancelled by issuing a registered notice to him on 09.04.1981 and the same was received by him which is evident from the postal acknowledgment, which is filed in the said LGC.
5. On 21.03.1989, N.Srinivasa Rao filed his counter, wherein he stated that necessary rights, title and interests of the land in question are with the legal heirs of Upari Ramaiah, that he is their GPA and that he did not alienate the land in question to anyone. On 29.01.1990, he deposed before the Special Court that the land said to have been sold by him to the five individuals against whom also, the above LGC was filed, has nothing to do with the land in question, that he sold some land covered by Sy.No.67 which is not purchased by Uppari Ramaiah, that the signature appearing on the postal acknowledgment, is his signature.
6. The Special Court by order dated 05.03.1990 allowed the LGC declaring that the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, N.Srinivasa Rao and five others to be land grabbers. Aggrieved by the same, N.Srinivasa Rao filed W.P.No.4026 of 1990 and the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah filed W.P.No.4991 of 1990, on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. Pending W.P.No.4991 of 1990, the assignees got themselves impleaded in the said Writ Petition.
7. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by a common order dated 11.07.1997. The High Court held that the two Sale Deeds are void, as no permission is obtained under Section 47 of the Act, that the same were also not validated under Section 50-B of the Act, that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act also does not apply, as the Sale Deeds are void and as there is no plea as to fraudulent misrepresentation, that there is no material placed on record to prove adverse possession, that the land in question is agricultural land as is evident from the documentary evidence on record and that the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and thereafter, the Society and its assignees are in possession of land in question, that N.Srinivasa Rao cannot be declared to be a land grabber, when he has not sold any portion of the land in question and that he sold a portion of land in Sy.No.67 which has nothing to do with the land in question.
8. Thereafter N.Srinivasa Rao filed W.P.M.P.No.24605 of 1997 in W.P.No.4026 of 1990 seeking modification of that part of the order where the High Court held that the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and thereafter the Society and its assignees were in possession of the land in question. The purchasers also filed Review W.P.M.P.No.22810 of 1997 in W.P.No.4991 of 1990 seeking review of the common order dated 11.07.1997. In spite of the categorical findings of the High Court with regards to the possession of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and thereafter the assignees, when N.Srinivasa Rao and his henchmen tried to interfere with the possession of the assignees, the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and the assignees filed Contempt Case No.1477 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court by order dated 21.11.1997, dismissed the aforesaid petitions filed by the purchasers and N.Srinivasa Rao.
9. Aggrieved by the same, N.Srinivasa Rao and the purchasers filed SLPs on the file of the Supreme Court of India, against the common order dated 11.07.1997 in W.P.No.4026 and 4991 of 1990, the common order dated 21.11.1997 in W.P.M.P.No.24605 of 1997 in W.P.No.4026 of 1990 and Review W.P.M.P.No.22810 of 1997 in W.P.No.4991 of 1990.
10. On 2.11.1998, the Supreme Court while granting leave, ordered status quo to be maintained. In spite of the order of the Supreme Court, N.Srinivasa Rao and persons claiming through him, tried to dispossess the assignees who were in peaceful possession of the land in question. When the above Contempt Case was listed, the same was brought to the notice of the High Court and the High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panjagutta Police Station to inspect the land in question and record the physical features. The Assistant Commissioner of Police who visited the land in question, found that the names of the assignees are written on several boards erected in the land, that there is a room on which the names of the assignees are written and that there is electric connection and also water connection. The Assistant Commissioner submitted the report to the said effect to the High Court. Subsequently, the Contempt Case was closed, in view of the status-quo order passed by the Supreme Court.
11. On 22.12.1998, N.Srinivasa Rao filed O.S.No.103 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad hereinafter refered to as the lower court against the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, assignees and the purchasers for specific performance of alleged Agreements of Sale said to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah.
12. The above SLPs, after leave being granted, were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.4534-4535/1999 and 4529-4532/1999 and Civil Appeal Nos.4527-4528/1999 respectively. In so far as Civil Appeals filed by the purchasers are concerned, the Supreme Court by a common order dated 23.03.2006, held that the orders passed by the High Court do not call for any interference. In so far as the Civil Appeals filed by N.Srinivasa Rao are concerned, the Supreme Court clarified “that in the event any civil action is taken by the said N.Srinivasa Rao in furtherance of his rights, if any, under the General Power of Attorney granted in his favour and/or any other document, such observations will not be relied upon in coming to a decision in the suit.”
13. In the said common order, the Supreme Court due to oversight, in paragraph 2 at page 19 and the last and first paragraphs in pages 28 and 29 of the judgment, observed that, admittedly the purchasers are in possession of the land in question. As the same is contrary to the record, the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah as well as the assignees filed a Clarification Petition before the Supreme Court. The said Clarification Petition was allowed as prayed for by order dated 05.04.2007 and the word ‘admittedly’ was substituted by the word ‘assuming’.
14. In view of the above, the lis with regards to the land in question between the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah and the assignees vis-à-vis the purchasers has come to an end. The purchasers cannot initiate any litigation in respect of the land in question before any Court or authority. N.Srinivasa Rao knowing fully well that the purchasers cannot claim any right or interest in the land in question has unnecessarily made them parties only to confuse and complicate the issue on hand.
15. In so far as the claim of N.Srinivasa Rao as against the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah is that they have executed several GPA's and agreements of sale in his favour and he alone is entitled to the land in question. Following are the details of the GPA's and agreements of sale alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in favour of N.Srinivasa Rao and the inconsistencies in the said documents, basing on which, N.Srinivasa Rao filed the above suit in O.S.No.103 of 1999.
(i) Document dated 07.10.1978 is a registered GPA alleged to have been executed by one of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah i.e., wife of Uppari Ramaiah in favour of N.Srinivasa Rao in respect of Ac.3-39 Gts. in Sy.Nos.66, 68 and 69 which is a part of the land in question. The said land is a joint family property of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah. Therefore, the wife of Uppari Ramaiah could not have executed the said GPA and no right can be created. In any event, the wife of Uppari Ramaiah died long ago and the GPA got extinguished.
(ii) Document dated 12.11.1978 is an unregistered GPA alleged to have been executed by four of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in respect of Ac.14-06 Gts. of land. The said document is not signed on every page. The document is signed only on the last page and on the back of the first two pages.
(iii) Document dated 26.06.1980 is an unregistered Agreement of Sale alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in respect of Ac.3-39 Gts. of land in Sy.Nos.66, 68 & 69. The document is signed only on the last page but not on all pages. The said document in fact is not an agreement of sale but an agreement mentioning about the previous transactions.
(iv) Document dated 31.10.1980 is an unregistered GPA alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in respect of Ac.14-06 Gts. of land. Only one of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah signed on all pages.
(v) Document dated 16.05.1984 is an Agreement of Sale in favour of N.Srinivasa Rao alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in respect of Ac.14-06 Gts. of land signed by only five of the legal heirs and the said document is in fact not an agreement of sale but the document mentions about the previous transactions.
16. When the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah came to know that N.Srinivasa Rao is misusing certain blank stamp papers on which some of them have signed, they made a publication in Andhra Patrika Newspaper on 16.10.1980, warning the public not to deal with N.Srinivasa Rao in respect of the land in question. They also got issued a registered legal notice dated 9.4.1981, revoking and canceling all the alleged GPA's and agreements of sale. The said registered notice was received by N.Srinivasa Rao on 18.4.1981 and he admitted his signature on the postal acknowledgement before the Special Court. In view of the same, whatever right N.Srinivasa Rao had in the land in question, assuming without admitting that the documents relied upon by him are validly executed, has been extinguished due to lapse of time as he has not taken any steps after receipt of the legal notice or at least after knowing the stand of the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah when they filed their counter on 22.02.1989 before the Special Court. Therefore, the suit filed by N.Srinivasa Rao is barred by limitation. It may be noted that N.Srinivasa Rao stated before the Special Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court that he has not alienated any part of the land in question to anyone. Even otherwise, when all the GPAs and Agreements said to have been executed by the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah in favour of N.Srinivasa Rao have been cancelled, no relief can be claimed basing on the said document in the above suit. It is interesting to note that in the cross-examination of N.Srinivasa Rao in O.S.No.103 of 1999, he has admitted about all the defects in the GPAs and Agreements mentioned above. In view of the above suit is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the light of the above the lower court ought to have dismissed the Suit on merits. However the lower court by judgment and decree dt 6-4-2010 without going into the merits of the case between the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah & N Srinivasa Rao held that the purchasers perfected their title to the land in question by adverse possession and dismissed the Suit. Such a finding in favour of the Purchasers could not have been granted when the purchasers lost their case against the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah right up to the Supreme Court. The same is illegal and is liable to be set aside by the High Court.
18. Aggrieved by the same the the Assignees filed CCCA Nos 71 & 72 of 2010 and the High Court by order dated
28-4-2010 in CCCAMP Nos 259 & 261 of 2010 passed the following order. “Heard it is contended that though defendants 31 to 35 have not claimed any relief in the Suit, still the trial court gave a finding by perfecting their title by way of adverse possession. In view of the same, there shall be interim injunction as prayed for”.
19. The appeals are likely to come up for hearing in a few months And the same are liable to be allowed duly setting aside the Judgment and decree of the lower Court.
kindly give your opinion regarding this case.is the specific performance suit filed in city civil court barred by time.in a specific performance suit can judgement be given in favour of a third party for adverse possession who got impleaded in the case.thankyou sirs
sanjay
23 November 2012 at 00:22
we had purchased a land in bubaneswar,orissa and regd the sale deed,mutation done and rent being paid on it. however there was no boundary wall at one side. while constructing the neighbour owner objected citing encroachment and since discussion failed we moved to civil court and court had decreed in our favour and enforce permanent injection for entry and disturbance of other party. 2 times we have started boundary wall and is being stalled by other party, we approached police to enforce civil court injection but in vain.now other party trying to encroach our area.whats the remedy?
Tashi Norbu Basi
22 November 2012 at 22:48
I am plaintiff in a declaration suit. All copies of documents annexed to my plaint were obtained by me from the respondent, who have filed the originals. The next date is fixed for confirmation of my affidavit of evidence. As my annexures are copies only, I'm sure I'll not be permitted to exhibit them.
My Query:- can I exhibit the originals filed by the respondent? And if so, under which provision of law? Are there any case laws which I can use as support?
My fear is that if I do not exhibit them, the respondent will also not do it and them I'll be left with no admissible documentary evidence to support my case. And also my attempt to exhibit the Respondent's originals will be objected to very strongly.
Please help. Thank you.
gopal ochani
22 November 2012 at 21:28
MY BROTHER HAS GET MY SIGNATURE ON SHOP AGREEMENT BY FORCE, I HAD PUT SOME CONDITIONS LIKE AS PER TERMS AND CONDITION OF SETTLEMENT, IN REAL TERMS THERE IS NO AGREEMENT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, I HAD NOT SIGNED ON MONEY RECIEPTS OF SALE CONSIDERATION, THIS AGREEMENT WAS 15 YEARS BACK IN 1998, CAN I SUIT CASE NOW
Rahul Sharma
22 November 2012 at 20:31
Part argument heard on application U/S 35 B r/w/ Section 151 CPC.
What is this section -- U/S 35 B r/w/ Section 151 CPC.
Sushil Karpe
22 November 2012 at 19:32
Dear Team,
Request your advise for the below..
I avail a credit card.. I wan't to know the payment options described below irrespective from the bank it is availed:
1. What r the payment options for payment of the credit card if the card holder is not in a financial position to pay the full bill amount?
2. what is the process for requesting the bank to reduce the amount?
3. Any specific format of the letter?
4. Please help the best possible wayout for the same.
Regards,
Sushil Karpe
Ashik Parmar
22 November 2012 at 18:00
Hi, I am an Australian Citizen and currently in India. I also have OCI. I am planning to marry an Indian girl in Mumbai. As it happens often, the girls family are opposing our relationship.
I want to know the fastest way i can get a legal marriage certificate. I read in this forum that there is a difference between a marriage certificate and marriage registration. As per my understanding Certificate will take time due to 30 days notice requirement whereas if i get married as per Hindu rituals and then apply for registration, it will be a quicker process.
Also i read somewhere that if i need a marriage certificate then i also need to get a certificate from Australian authorities regarding my marital status. Whereas i don't see any such requirement for marriage registration.
Please correct me if i am wrong in my understanding and please guide me as to what and how things are to be done to get a legal document at my earliest so we both can be safe from anything untoward that her family does against us. Thanks to all in advance
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Consumer
i want to file a consumer complaint against service center of washing machine because they have given insufficient services , who are necessary party in this complaint. kindly suggest.