love
13 April 2011 at 16:16
dear sir,
i have a credit card of Hdfc bank. bank give me personal loan on my credit card on behalf of my saving a/c. i m paying my emis from two years. but unfortunately i cant pay emis from 4 months. then i m not staying that place,where i giving Address in a/c. i m not give any Document or bank Cheques in bank. but i give my PAN no. in bank. what they can track me. and i want open another saving a/c for some saving ,
can i open bank a/c.
plz tell me what action can take by Bank for recovery of loan and what should i can.
if i collect some money i m pay whole amount to bank. but what i can till then.
plz give me ur answer.
Gulshan Tanwar
13 April 2011 at 12:53
Acquiescence and waiver.- Abandonment of right.-The plea of Acquiescence and waiver is akin to estoppel.-When the circumstances do not permit the plea of estoppel against a person, plea of abandonment, acquiescence, waiver or laches is not permissible.-Mere acquiescence, waiver or laches not amounting to abandonment does not disentitle relief in equity in respect of executed contract. Sha Mulchand and Co., Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem, AIR 1953 SC 98: 1953 SCJ 68: 1953 SCR 351
Acquiescence and waiver.-Abandonment of right.-Land Acquisition.-Notification.-Persons not filing objections.-Cannot be permitted to contend inquiry was vitiated or seek quashing of declaration.-Notification conclusive proof that affected person had “waived” all personal objections.
Those claimants who have not filed objections to the Section 4 notification cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground.
Now objections under Section 5A, if filed, can relate to the contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even if the purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and objection (iii) is personal to the objector. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which as to be pleaded in Section 5A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. Learned Solicotor General Sri Salve rightly argued that in respect of each land owner whose land is acquired the Section 4 notification if it is sought to be avoided on personal grounds as stated in (ii) and (iii) above, it is necessary that objection be filed to avoid a voidable notification. Otherwise, the notification which is not avoided on any personal grounds, remains operative and personal objections are deemed to be waived.# Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 2000 SC 3737 : 2000(87) DIT 245 : 2000(4) Rec Civ R 368 : 2000(4) ICC 279 : 2000(7) SCC 296 : 200(4) Cur CC 1
Acquiescence and waiver.- Abandonment of right.-The plea of Acquiescence and waiver is akin to estoppel.-When the circumstances do not permit the plea of estoppel against a person, plea of abandon- ment, acquiescence, waiver or laches is not permissible.-Mere acquies- cence, waiver or laches not amounting to abandonment does not disentitle relief in equity in respect of executed contract. Sha Mulchand and Co., Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem, AIR 1953 SC 98: 1953 SCJ 68: 1953 SCR 351
Acquiescence and waiver.-Abandonment of right.-Land Acquisition.-Notification.-Persons not filing objections.-Cannot be permitted to contend inquiry was vitiated or seek quashing of declaration.-Notification conclusive proof that affected person had “waived” all personal objections.
Those claimants who have not filed objections to the Section 4 notification cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground.
Now objections under Section 5A, if filed, can relate to the contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even if the purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and objection (iii) is personal to the objector. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which as to be pleaded in Section 5A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. Learned Solicotor General Sri Salve rightly argued that in respect of each land owner whose land is acquired the Section 4 notification if it is sought to be avoided on personal grounds as stated in (ii) and (iii) above, it is necessary that objection be filed to avoid a voidable notification. Otherwise, the notification which is not avoided on any personal grounds, remains operative and personal objections are deemed to be waived.# Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 2000 SC 3737 : 2000(87) DIT 245 : 2000(4) Rec Civ R 368 : 2000(4) ICC 279 : 2000(7) SCC 296 : 200(4) Cur CC 1
Acquiescence and waiver.- Abandonment of right.-The plea of Acquiescence and waiver is akin to estoppel.-When the circumstances do not permit the plea of estoppel against a person, plea of abandon- ment, acquiescence, waiver or laches is not permissible.-Mere acquies- cence, waiver or laches not amounting to abandonment does not disentitle relief in equity in respect of executed contract. Sha Mulchand and Co., Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem, AIR 1953 SC 98: 1953 SCJ 68: 1953 SCR 351
Acquiescence and waiver.-Abandonment of right.-Land Acquisition.-Notification.-Persons not filing objections.-Cannot be permitted to contend inquiry was vitiated or seek quashing of declaration.-Notification conclusive proof that affected person had “waived” all personal objections.
Those claimants who have not filed objections to the Section 4 notification cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground.
Now objections under Section 5A, if filed, can relate to the contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even if the purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and objection (iii) is personal to the objector. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which as to be pleaded in Section 5A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. Learned Solicotor General Sri Salve rightly argued that in respect of each land owner whose land is acquired the Section 4 notification if it is sought to be avoided on personal grounds as stated in (ii) and (iii) above, it is necessary that objection be filed to avoid a voidable notification. Otherwise, the notification which is not avoided on any personal grounds, remains operative and personal objections are deemed to be waived.# Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 2000 SC 3737 : 2000(87) DIT 245 : 2000(4) Rec Civ R 368 : 2000(4) ICC 279 : 2000(7) SCC 296 : 200(4) Cur CC 1
Acquiescence and waiver.-Effect of .-Objection to jurisdiction.- Effect of acquiescence.-Existence of binding precedent.-The earlier judgement sought to be displaced as per incurium, after acquiescence in that judgment.-Such conduct on the part of the litigant is not permissible. Mamleshwar Prasad and another v. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead) through L.Rs., AIR 1975 SC 907: 1975(1) SCWR 405: 1975(2) SCC 232: 1975(3) SCR 834
Gulshan Tanwar
13 April 2011 at 12:27
Accident's claim.-Amendment of petition.-Considerations for.- Discovery of permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent after the filing of original petition.- Enhancement of original claim should be allowed.
Anand Kumar Jain v. Union of India and another, AIR 1986 SC 1125: 1986(2) ACJ 774
Accident's claim.-Compensation.- Considerations for determination of .-Necessity to balance loss of future pecuniary benefit which could have accrued to the claimant.-Decision partly on conjectures.-Permissibility.
Under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. Then power given to the tribunal in the matter of fixing compensation under that provision is wide. Even if we assume (we do not propose to decide that question in this case) that compensation under the provision has to be fixed on the same basis as is required to be done under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act 13 of 1855), the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained estimate or even partly a conjecture. The general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source come to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained. The determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables. In the assessment of those imponderables, there is likely to be a margin or error. If the assessment made by the High Court cannot be considered to be unreasonable.-and we do not think it to be unreasonable.-it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the same. M/s. Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. and another etc., AIR 1971 SC 1624: 1973 Pun LR 722: 1971(1) SCC 785: 1971 Supp. SCR 20
xxx123546x
13 April 2011 at 10:12
Hello All,
My wife belongs to BC (vellalar), while I am SC, My question is, After marriage can she avail my SC reservation quota for State / Central Govt exams? and entitled to apply for competitive exams? still her Community certificate in BC category. we need to get new community certificate?
Please clarify.
Thanks
anand
hello1095
13 April 2011 at 10:08
Dear Sir/s,
What are the options available if a contempt of court petition is dismissed by the city civil court? The contempt was made by the defendants to an interim order passed by the city civil court.
Kindly let me know how can one approach the High Court?
Also kindly let me know what will be the right thing to do next:
1> A Writ Petition or
B> AO (Appeal from Order)
Kindly provide detailed replies.
Thanking you,
GN
Anonymous
13 April 2011 at 10:04
Dear Experts of the Forum,
What is the difference between A Fostered Daughter and An Adopted Daughter? How to prove the later in comparison with the former?
Please explain this in clear terms, to battle a court case.
Thanking you ALL in advance.
Anonymous
13 April 2011 at 09:47
Our new land lords have filed a petition in the High Court against BMC for issuing Notice for criminal prosecution to them and have also made 17 other tenants party to it where in my wife is also a party as tenancy is in her name. Now my queries are as under:
1) I am having her POA so can I appear in person on her behalf ?
2) Do I have to file a written statement on her behalf and get it affirmated by the concerened dept. of High Court or I can merely present my self in the court with Original and Zerox copy of POA?
Pl. clarify and help ?
Anonymous
12 April 2011 at 23:36
a case has been regestered against us.2 GPAs were produced by pliantiffs 1.made in pakistan in 1997,2. made in USA in 2010,both unauthanticated by indian high commission of those countries,when we raised this in court,pliantiff lawyer said there is government notification regarding the same,what is the notification,& dose it really exist recognising the GPA of pakistan.
Anonymous
12 April 2011 at 22:06
DEAR SIR,
A HOUSE AT LUCKNOW WAS ALLOTTED ON RENT BY THE LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO MY WIFE.
I WANT TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL IN DELHI HIGH COURT AS EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ALLOTTED ON RENT TO MY WIFE.
WHEN I SAY THIS TO MY LAWYER HE SAYS THAT CAN BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE IF SOME OFFICIAL FROM LDA COMES TO DEPOSE THAT THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT LETTER.
I FIND THIS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND FEEL THAT THE LAWYER MAY PERHAPS BE NOT CORRECT.
THE HOUSE ALLOTTED ABOVE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO MY WIFE LUCKNOW DEV AUTHORITY UNDER A SCHEME FOR DISCOUNTED SALE.
THIS OFFER WAS AVAILED BY MY WIFE. THE HOUSE WAS BOUGHT AND THE SALE DEED IS REGISTERED IN HER NAME.
IN THIS CASE TOO THE LAWYER OPINES THAT AN OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR AT LUCKNOW WILL HAVE TO DEPOSE TO CONFIRM AUTHENCITY.
I FIND THIS RIDICULOUS AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE LEGAL VIEW IN REGARD TO ADMISSIBILITY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY ME UNDER AFFIDAVIT AND ISSUED BY GOVT/SEMI GOVT AUTHORITIES.
KINDLY GUIDE SIR AND PLEASE QUOTE RELEVANT EXTRACTS SO THAT I CAN GET BACK TO MY LAWYER.
WITH REGARDS
VINAY KALA
APRIL 12,11
VINAY KALA
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Procedure
Respected Experts'
In proceeding do Respondent can be called as prosecution witness. ???
If yes under which provision of law?? Pliz !! en-light in detail.
Thank's in advance