sanjay sharma
18 May 2010 at 19:16
sir,
kindly tell me what supreme court have ordered in case where sucession certificate is odered by court to an individual and nominee stands in postal small saving certificates. Who is entitle to clsim the amount of kisan vikas patra of deceased, sucession holder or the nominee
regards
sanjay
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 17:39
A tresspasser get a stayorder from court due to non appearance of landlord how long this stay order is valid.
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 15:30
what is diferance betwen the legalhiers certificate and succession certificate
which one is the more valid and legaly acceptable?
how will issuce the succession certificate or order ?
what are the situvation succesion certificate need?
vineet advocate
18 May 2010 at 14:33
I made an agreement and that lost somewhere.Can I made a new one of the same content? if no then what is repercussion of that ?
Anoopkumar K.A
18 May 2010 at 13:22
Hi
I have a few doubts the applicablity of the succession certificate under Indian Succession Act on Hindus & Muslims. For brevity they are listed hereunder
1) Whether Part X of the Indian Succession Act is applicable to religions other then Indian Christians
2) Whether succession certificate is granted for immovable property and moveable properties other than security/debt
3) Whether a legal heir certificate will be sufficient instead of succession certificate
Kindly oblige me with your assistance in this regard
Muneeswaran K
18 May 2010 at 13:10
What are the requirements to file a defamation case ?
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 13:01
Easementary rights for light and air- whether a construction in a plot in between two 20 years old constructed ones is objectionable by the owners of the constructed houses?
And if the owners have tenanted the house, do they have right to claim easementary rights?
And if the owners live in someother place for the first 6 years of the 20 years and then come to the house and live for 14years then what is the status of their rights?
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 12:09
RS. 10000/- COULD NOT BE RECOVERED BY PREVIOUS COMMITEE UNDER FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. EGM HAD SANCTIONED RS.80000/- TO BUILD OFFICE. CHEQUE OF RS.40000/- WAS ISSUED TO CONTACTOR ACCPTED BY EGM.
2. WORK STRATED BUT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED BUT HAD TO STOPPED DUE TO POLICE COMPLAIN BY NEBOURING SOC.
3. WORK COMPLETED WAS ESTIMATED BY COMMITEE TO RS.30000/- HENCE CONTRACTOR WAS ASKED TO REFUND RS.10000/- BUT CONTRACTOR REFUSED TO OUR ESTIMATE HENCE HE GAVE BILL OF RS.40000/- & REFUSED TO REFUND.
4. MENWHILE COMMITEE HAD TO RESIGNED DUE TO HARRASMENT BY A MEMBER.
5. NEW COMMITEE CULD NOT BE FORMED HENCE ADMINISTRATOR WAS APPONTED.
6. NOW NEW COMMITEE IS IN PLACE. RS.10000/-
ARE SHOWN DUE FROM CONTRACOR SINCE THE DISPUTED YEAR 2006 TILL DATE
KINDLY ADVISE COURSE OF ACTION FOR NEW COMITEE.
CAN NEW COMIITEE RECOVER THIS DISPUTED AMOUNT OF RS.10000/- FROM PREVIOUS COMITTE MEMBERS AS THEY HAD ON RECORD TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY TO RECOVER THAT AMOUNT FROM CONTRACTOR?
s.loganathan
18 May 2010 at 11:17
I had a CC limit of 122 lakhs. My account went bad and I could not service my interest & principal for 107 days. My account is declared as NPA on the 90th day. On the 108th day, I service the interest in full & principal (part). Sarfaesi 13(2) issued and subsequent possession u/s 13(4) taken by affixing notice. Now, the Bank issues a 'Fresh Notice' u/s 13(2). The Bank has not withdrawn the first notice or has not re-conveyed possession of my property. Prior to the 107th day, my account has been active and within the sanction limit with many transactions. I have already made an application before the DRT and have taken back the application for correction and resubmitting. In the meantime, I have come across a judgment. It was on an Appeal filed in 2004. Can anyone tell me if there has been any amendment or further ruling of the Supreme Court that has any implication on that ruling. Pls help.
Asha T. Ruia v. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd., IV (2006) BC
(DRT Mumbai)
“ Coming to the all important issue of NPA, it may be at the outset noted that the notice u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act states that account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2003. Mr. Colabawala, learned Counsel for the applicant has straightaway submitted that the issue as to whether the account was NPA on the aforesaid date was decided against the Bank by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 25 of 2004 filed by present applicants and two others. My attention is drawn to Para Nos 18 to 21 of the judgement delivered by this Tribunal on 21.9.2004 holding that the account could not be classified as NPA within six months next before the issuance of notice (20.3.2004) under Section 13(2) which was germane to that appeal. The Tribunal had observed that there were credit entries in the account between 28.11.2003 and 29.12.2003 in the aggregate of Rs. 55 lakh. Upon that, the Tribunal quashed above referred notice and consequently restrained the Bank from taking any action under SARFAESI Act on basis of said notice. Mr. Vilas Naik, learned Counsel for the Bank has pointed out that this Tribunal in operative part ‘C’ of the judgment had clarified that the Bank would be at liberty to issue fresh notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. In reply, Mr. Colabawala submitted and in my view rightly that the Tribunal had given the liberty for removal of doubt, if any, in the minds of the parties to the effect that the account could never be classified as NPA. I also find substance in his further submissions that by said clarification, this Tribunal did not allow reopening and reagitation of the issue of classification of the account as NPA as on 30.11.2003 on the same set of the facts and issued notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act”
“ Even if above aspect is for a while kept aside and the issue as to whether the classification of the account as NPA as on 30.11.2003 is proper or not and whether the notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act is legal and valid is re-examined, it would be seen that the Bank is hopelessly placed. It may be reiterated in this connection that there are several payments made within six months of the classification of the account as NPA on 30.11.2003. In other words, it is not that this is a straightforward case of the interest and/or installment of principal remaining overdue for a clear period of more than 180 days. The same was the case in Appeal No. 25 of 2004. In the notice impugned in that matter also the Bank went on to simply state that the account is classified as NPA without bothering to clarify as to how the account could become NPA irrespective of significant payments within six months of issuance of notice. This Tribunal had observed in Para No. 19 of Appeal No. 25 of 2004 that the Bank ought to have elaborately stated the facts as to how the account was treated as NPA irrespective of credit entries within 180 days of the issuance of notice. In Para No. 21 of the judgment, this Tribunal went on to point out the importance of the statutory notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act. It was observed that the notice, in case like that, should give particulars of the Bank’s claim in details from which a person should be in a position to readily know the default and should provide opportunity for complying, without reasonable controversy. The observation in said judgment clearly is that one should not be required to do forensic examinations and analysis of the notice of the statutory notice for finding out whether classification of the account as NPA was proper. It seems that the Bank has not taken any leaf from the above observation and has not learnt a lesson therefrom. The Bank did not bother to send the chart (Exh. IV to the reply) with notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act to the Borrower details as to how the account was classified as NPA. In these circumstances, I hold that the impugned notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act being omnibus, is bad in law”.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
court fee
R/Members
I had filed a civil suit on behalf of tenant i.e. my client against landlord for permanent injuction restraining landlord not to dispossess me forcibly,lower court ordered status quo,thereafter landlord moved before district judge in appeal and stay was vacated in first appeal,i filed RSA before highcourt but during the pendency(as case was filed but was at initial stage and there no order was passed by highcourt) landlord forcibly dispossed me,my RSA was dismissed as it became infructuos,i filed amendment application which was allowed by the court,in this amendment application i prayer for possession of the disputed premises in view of subsequent event and forcibly dispossesion,now landlord has filed an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that now suit is amended and prayer is for possession thus plaintiff (tenant)have to paid court fee on the market value of disputed property i.e. more than one crore Rs...Kindly enlighten me on this issue,my client is not in position to pay Rs. 2,50000/- as court fee,kindly help as arguments is fixed for 23-05-10.Thanx