Bhushan V. Kale
04 March 2011 at 20:08
A money decree is passed against a bank having a branch at Mumbai and a private party. Where in a bank is deft. no. 3. Suit was filed at Nagpur. In execution petition, Nagpur branch is made a party / J.D. no. 3, insted of branch at Mumbai (Mumbai branch is original defendant).
What is the remedy for Nagpur branch ? it was not party to suit.
Whether the execution against Nagpur branch will dismiss?
Please site any rulings.
Anonymous
04 March 2011 at 19:36
Hi..
I want to know the process and proceeding of declairing Insolvency.
The person in concern is resident of delhi not a businessmen. He is ex gov employee but have lots of debts, against which he has issued post dated chq. Few of them are bounced as well.
Further the person do not have any property in his name also he dont have any other source of income except govt pension.
Please suggest.
Anonymous
04 March 2011 at 17:51
COMPLAINT AGAINST ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD Non-payment of dues towards procurement of bank limits.
LAKSHYA GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT LTD AND THEIR FLAGSHIP COMPANY ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD, (ATOL) having its office at Udyog Bhavan, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. The director of ATOL (hereinafter referred to as “the Director”) and CEO of Lakshya Global Logistics Ltd (herein after referred to as “the CEO”).
Our concern, in the said transaction, acted as an intermediatory between ATOL “the Company” and the said Bank, our concern is entitled to receive a percentage commission on the total amount disbursed to the Company, which was agreed between our Concern and the Director and the CEO of the respective Company.
After getting the limits sanctioned and the amount being credited by the Bank into the Company’s accounts, our concern approached the Company Director repeatedly for clearing our dues towards service charges for facilitating the bank limits, but till date our service charges have not been paid to us. The Company and its directors have willfully defaulted, with ulterior intention and motives.
Had it not been for our involvement in the entire transaction the Company would not have received sanction from the said Bank for the credit facilities required by the Company. This has been further confirmed and affirmed by the Bank Official who is also an authorized signatory of the bank. This has been affirmed and confirmed to the CEO, during his telephonic conversation with him.
The CEO of Lakshya Global Logistics Pvt Ltd (hereinafter called the “CEO”) approached our concern on behalf of Adhunik Transport Organisation Ltd on May 25th, 2010, for procuring financial services towards working capital which was fulfilled by way of arranging of Cash Credit facility (CC facility) and CMS facility (Cash Management facility) from a private Banker.
Throughout the transaction the one point contact we had with the Company was the CEO wherein he adhered to all requests of the bank for submission of documents which was communicated via email to us, the consultants, all the email communications are available. The bank congratulated us on the successful completion of risk assessment on 2nd July’10, had we not been part of this transaction initiation the bank would not keep us in the loop. Throughout all bank communications we as consultants have been in the communication loop, this itself proves our association with this transaction.
The communication of the Director’s meeting with the bank was also done thru the CEO, wherein they met the bankers at their office with us in presence.
Till the transaction was complete, the director never mentioned the incapability of the CEO in his Company transactions; he kept going with the tide with his sweet talks and mean intentions.
Though the CEO approached our concern on behalf of the director for the fund arrangement, the Company never gave us a mandate letter despite repeated mails and telephonic discussions. We decided to go ahead with the arrangement of funds in good faith and sincerity, but the same was not reciprocated by the Company and its Director.
The last and balance funding of this arrangement was made on 24th Feb’11, this information was communicated via mail by the banker. Please note that had we not been the intermediary for this transaction, the bank would not have parted with this information to us. Since inception of this transaction i.e. approaching the bank, negotiating the rates, submission of documents in concurrence with the client, follow-up for the fulfillment of transaction has been carried out diligently by us as consultants; the bank recognizes our presence in this transaction and therefore the communication
The Company is now backing off from paying our rightful dues to us stating that the CEO has no right in the flagship company decisions, but this was not communicated during any of the meetings conduction from May’10 onwards.
Kindly suggest the action I can take against the erring Company.
Manoj D Gupta
04 March 2011 at 17:11
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENT TO THE TITLE OF THE PLAINT under which section/ order of cpc
Ans : ORDER 6 RULE 17
Manoj D Gupta
04 March 2011 at 17:06
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENT TO THE TITLE OF THE PLAINT under which section of c.p.c
Anonymous
04 March 2011 at 15:55
sir,
A sold a property to B.after 1 week B sold this to C.now A,B,&C are knew the deed are fully incorrect.so they agreed to quash deeds by mutual agreement.can they do thru civik court?what is procedure for this?
N.J. MISHRA
04 March 2011 at 15:16
PLEASE MEMBER SUGGEST;
OUR COMPANY HAS APPOINTED A SEAFARER ON CONTRACT BASIS FOR 10 MONTHS +/- ONE MONTH. AFTER EXPIRY OF CONTRACT, COMPANY EXTENDED THE EMPLOYMENT TERM FOR ANOTHER ONE MONTH. HIS CONTRACT EXPIRED ON 04/02/2011 AND AFTER THE EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT PERIOD HE WAS SUPPOSE TO SERVE TILL 04/03/2011, BUT HE LEFT THE SERVICE ON 28/02/2011. THIS ACT AMOUNTS TO BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTATANCES THE COMPANY CAN CLAIM ONLY DAMAGES OR THE AMOUNT INCURRED ON THE SEAFARER BY FILING CIVIL SUIT. APART FROM FILING CIVIL SUIT WHAT SOUGHT OF ACTION CAN COMPANY TAKES AGAINST THE SEAFARER.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Injunction suit
If a tenant is staying in a place for 25 years and is filing a suit as the landlord has stopped accepting rent for some time, and suspects that the landlord has sold his property for redevelopment - Is it mandatory to ask for declaration of tenancy rights in prayers in injunction suit under the Bombay Rents Act? Isn't it obvious as the person is staying as a tenant for 25 years? All he needs is assurance that his tenancy wont be terminated or his tenancy rights wont be infringed upon. Are there any judgements that makes the declaration of tenancy rights optional in an injunction suit under the Bombay Rents Act?