Anonymous
28 September 2010 at 20:58
Dear Sir,
I have won the case in CAT and I have filed the Contempt proceedings against non implementation of order and CAT has directed the respondents to appear personally
Thereafter, I have the reasonable apprehension that the respondents will move to the High Court for stay so I filed the caveat Application
The respondents filed the Writ Petition before the High Court for quashing the order and Interim relief for stay and the hearing will be on 30/09/2010 for admission
My queries are:
1 Since the matter is listed before the Delhi High Court whether I should take the written reply or have to make arguments orally against the Application moved by Writ Petitioner for Interim relief/stay under Section 151 CPC
2 Whether the Hon'ble Judge can take the Reply against the interim relief Application in the court Room?
3 Whether there will be separate arguments for Writ Petition prior to admission?
4 Whether I would have to specify the case law during the arguments at the time of admission itself?
Please help me immediaely
Please infor
Rajesh kumar
28 September 2010 at 20:52
I have filed a suit for possession against my tenant. Subsequently I moved an application under order 12 rule 6 for order based on admission. The tenant-landlord relationship was accepted, the receipt of notice of termination was also accepted.In haryana if it is a new property, it is not covered under rent control act. I had submitted a copy of occupation certificate to prove this point. However, the judge declined the application for decree, stating that I have submitted only photocopy of occupation certificate and without evidence recording, he can not give the relief under 12(6). I also have the original with me.And there was no objection from defendent on the certificate.
What action should i take to get speedy relief under 12(6)now.
M Ravinder Babu Advocate Parka
28 September 2010 at 20:09
Judgement Dated: 4/16/2009 7:07:00 PM
:
- Section:
Head note: Banks Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles can only be done through legal means- Banks not to resort to use of muscle power for recovery of loans and persistently bothering borrower at odd hours
Judgement: ICICI BANK Vs. SHANTI DEVI SHARMA & ORS: SUPEREME COURT: TARUN CHATTERJEE, DALVEER BHANDARI j.j., dated 15/05/2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4935 of 2006] Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles can only be done through legal means- Lenders/Banks not to resort to use of muscle power for recovery of loans and persistently bothering borrower at odd hours - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - RBI Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders dated 5.5.2003 - Guideline (v)(c) - Guidelines on Engagements of Recovery Agents dated 24.4.2008. Prosecution case was that son of respondent committed suicide as a result of harassment and humiliation caused to him by the appellants bank recovery agents. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking for directions to the Commissioner of Police to take action against the appellant-bank. High Court ordered the Police to file reports as to the status of the investigation against the bank. The High Court later reviewed the two status reports that were filed by the Police. It found them unsatisfactory and accordingly, directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation into the matter as expeditiously as possible and take necessary action against those found guilty of abetting the deceased to commit suicide. In addition, the High Court stated the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him; and the modus-operandi employed by the banks for realization of their loan amount and for recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given was not legal. The appellant bank filed applications for impleadment as well as for clarification/deletion/modification under s.482 Cr.P.C. According to the appellant bank, the observations made by the High Court were unjustified and unnecessary for deciding the case. In an order dated 11.8.2006, the High Court declined to expunge the impugned observations on the ground that they were made consciously, however clarified the matter by stating that any observation made against appellant Bank would not influence or affect the proceedings, if any, taken against the said bank or its employees. Appellant-Bank filed the present appeal.
lalitkumar bhandari
28 September 2010 at 19:19
we are dealer of the one company and becuase of the mistake of accountant of dealer there was payment of Rs.12 lakhs done to the compnay without purchase of goods from said company this happens in 1999. the dealer got the knowledge of said mistake in the year 2001 and he send letters to the compnay to rectify the mistake at that time the company agreed to rectify the mistake orally and promised to dealer they will supplying the goods instead of repayment.the dealer was also agreed fot the same but company not supplied the goods not repaid the amount.after that the dealer send various letters and reminders to the company to settle the issue but compnay has given oral promise to settle the issue nad prolonged the issue till June 2010 and now company informed to dealer that you have right to take the legal action against us you period of claiming the money is lapsed.can i file ths recovery of money suit against the compnay?can this suit will barred by limitaion?if yes what is other remedies?can i apply the provision of section 17 &18 of limitation Act. Act?
rockfall
28 September 2010 at 16:58
Dear Respected Experts
The issue is: whether or not the court can be held to have implicitly condoned late filing of court process where the opposing party does not object and where the court issues preparatory orders only in respect of the merits of the case and does not mention late filing in any of those?
Anonymous
28 September 2010 at 14:45
Dear Learned Seniors,
I hereby request you to clarify me about the persons who are entitled to become the legal heirs of a male member after his death if he has got a wife and one female child and father alive. Further i hereby state that his mother already predeceased him. Kindly clarify me.
Anonymous
28 September 2010 at 13:50
1. I WANT TO REGISTER A SALE DEED OF LAND WORTH 1,80,000/- WRITTEN IN RS 100 VALUED NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER. HOW MUCH WILL BE THE REGISTRAION CHARGES
2. I ALSO WANT TO REGISTER A GIFT DEED OF LAND WORTH 1,00,000/- WRITTEN IN RS 20/ VALUED NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER. HOW MUCH WILL BE THE REGISTRATION CHARGES.
sanjeev
28 September 2010 at 09:29
We live in a stand alone building consisting of 8 flats in Pune. The builder has not formed a society or any other such association. The builder after 19 years has gone and sold the Common Terrace to one of the flat owners it has also been registered in the Registrars office where the registered plan clearly shows that the terrace is a common terrace, also the builder sold an illegal out house in the parking to the same flat owner whose daughter runs a yoga centre and an clinic in that place. We went to court and during the pendency of the case the builder and the said flat owner went ahead and registered a sale deed where the entire common parking where the yoga centre and the clinic was situated was sold to the said flat owner. the case is still in the court and we have applied for demolition of the said illegal out house to the Pune Municipal Corporation.
x
27 September 2010 at 23:35
I need your advice in the following situation:
Two witnesses who had signed a document as marginal witnesses have submitted affidavits in the court three years ago. The never appear for a cross examination. For the last 6-7 dates the Zimni orders reads
"PW2 not appeared. Appeal for Adjournment. Heard. Granted in the interest of Justice. This will be the last opportunity for the Witnesses to Appear."
Please advise me as to what one should do in the above circumstances.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
partition is not correctly done as per will ?
our grand father make a will on 1954, after his death my father and step brothers partitioned the property by way of mutual understanding, but as per will they are not correctly partitioned and our father getting more property from the joint property, because he is elder son and others are minors. so our father property comes under ancesstral property or self equired property?
actually we are filling a suit for partition, but my father spokes that he is getting property from his father by way of will,so it is self equied property, you are no way concern share in the property.
as per will the property is not partioned, then what way we will consider the property.
our grand father not signed in the every page of will, isn't valid or not?