Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 10:39
DRT verdit in case i found: the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therefore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case
How the defendents cameout fromthe clutches of bank? They win the case DRAT?
Surprising banks if not prpoerly maintain how the coustmer saved? customer is GOD to the bank, but now no bank feels the same, moreover behaves and using abusing language. NPA became more fraud and it became GOLDMINE to the bank officials.
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 10:21
DRT decreed 2009 Rs.18lakhs with further interest @6%pa Now the claim ofthe bank Rs. 27lakhs within a year. Principal amount Rs. 11.60lakhs. Is it posible? Bank not giving account copy and going to auctioned secured asset. DRAT stayed not to confirm auction. But bank going to confirm auction. Is it valid when stayed?
Contempt of court applicable tobank?
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 08:42
If a WILL is written and attested by notary public.After the death of maker can it be registered in SR office?
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 00:48
TajaNews - National
SC upholds constitutional validity of Securitisation Act - 4-, 2004 - 08: 0
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Securtisation Act empowering the financial institutions to attach and sell assets of companies who have defaulted in repaying loans taken by them.
However, the court declared section 17 (2) of the Act as unconstitutional. This provided for pre-deposit of 75 per cent of the liability, if defaulting company wanted to appeal against the order of attachment of its assets. [ TajaNews
----this message iget insearch engine "cuil"
rahul yadav
05 September 2010 at 00:27
Dear Sir, Thanks for your valuable comment on declaration of civil death.
but problem is still not solve.the case is-
A service person missing on dated 4-7-98 and fir lodged on dated 18-7-98. thereafter civil death certificate issued by the court on dated 21-2-2006. this w.p. considering under the Hon'ble high court.
which is date of death for a missing person.
missing date or civil certificate issued date.
kindly help me by giving me reference of previous judgement
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 22:26
During the pendency of Writ Petition, The Respondents have sold the property and the Respondents have sold the property for 50 lakhs.
The plaintiff was ordered by the trial court to pay on the court fees on the section 24(a) of karnataka Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.
However, during the writ petition the plaintiff was ordered to pay the court fees on the cancellation of the fradulent sale deeds under Sec 38.
The plaintiff has made arrangements with lots of difficulty and paid the court fees after the order was done by the high court.
Now when the matter was pending before the various courts, the property was sold for 50 Lakhs, and this was deliberately done by the respondents to again harass the paintiff proceedings.
Will the plaintiff be ordered again to pay the court fee on the sale deed which was done deliberately during the pendency of the writ?
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 20:22
can a government servant be personally liable for non payment of pension dues.As the government has already made notification to calculate the dues and release them ,the concern officer is unnecessarily delaying the matter . Can compensation be claimed from that concerned officer.
SHIESTA007
04 September 2010 at 19:52
During the pendency of Writ petitions there has been fradulent sale transactions.
1] 17th April 2010, the notices were issued to the respondents.
2] 22nd May 2010, there has been hurriedly and cunningly the sale deed was executed by the respondent, who was the contesting party to the case.
3] 24th May and 25th May there was an interim order of staying the proceedings of lower court. Even at this time the respondent did not utter the word that he has sold the subject property which is running in the court.
4] 17th June 2010, the court made final orders and even at this time the respondent hid the facts that he has sold the suit property.
Can we initiate Contempt of Court against the respondents for suppressing the material facts of the case during the pendency of writ?
s.loganathan
04 September 2010 at 19:10
A firm registered in Tamilnadu with the Registrar of Firms. Renewal lapsed for more than 3 years. Firm engaged with money-lending business. Can firm now enjoy special provisions enacted by legislature u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act? Would the debt so arising out of the money-lending by the firm be a 'legally enforceable debt'?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
expert opinion
1.any expert available in india to ascertain the age of the ink in a pro note?
2. what is the maximum amount to be given thro pro note between two individuals?