Ruturaj
25 May 2014 at 13:52
I am jointly holding shares of a flat along with my son and wife. We (myself n wife) want to delete my name from the shares and from the membership and give the entire membership and shares to the joint holder i.e my son. What is the procedure to do this.
Sou
25 May 2014 at 13:12
Hello Sir,
My DOB in my Birth Certificate is 3-Sept-1090; Where as my school certificates, Voter ID card and PAN card (Every other document) has DOB 3-may-1990. Now I want to create a Passport and as Birth Certificate is mandatory, it is going to create a lots of complicacy. So what should I do now anything legally to come out from this problem?
Thanks,
Manish Raj Verma
24 May 2014 at 19:32
My brother is the owner of a company at haridwar, who purchased a property from SIDCUL (State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal) on dated 27 Nov. 2009 via lease deed for 90 years.
Now an Amin from Tehsil comes at the site / factory of my brother and shows a Recovery Certificate issued by Tehsildar Office for recovering an amount of about 3 lac + others + interest which is in the name of some other company for the AY 2008-2009 of Sales Tax Department. On investigation from sales tax department it was found that the previous company existed there, this was the recovery of that company not of my brothers company. But the amin is harassing us to recover the dues. He has already taken some amount against said RC against receipt.
What should I do.
Can we go for Stay suit against the said Recovery in the civil court and what about the notice of Sec. 80 CPC and whether the court will award the stay in our favour. please help.
Rajeev Varshney
24 May 2014 at 18:55
Sir,
We are putting our problems as follows before Hon'ble sir for better solution
1. => That Chandrakanta Banarsi Dass Public Society has applied for loan from SBI (SME) Branch Aligarh for establishment of primary education institution which is to be opened in the name of Rapid International Academy and project was submitted to the bank for worth Rs. 13 Crore.
2. =>That concerned bank has sanctioned on 20-02-2010 on Rs. 2.80 crore and assured to pay the balance after some time. We have invested a huge money worth Rs. 7 Crore in the construction of building and other equipments and the Institution had started in the year 2011-12 and continued upto 2012-13 but due to financial crises institution could not continue for further period as bank did not support us and had totally refused to pay the balance amount as per project.
3. =>That we have deposited about worth Rs. 1.70 Crore to the bank. The accounts of bank are not maintained regularly in the course of business. The bank has failed to comply its assurance as given prior.
4. =>That our account recorded as NPA on 30-09-2013 at the amount of 2.57 crore and notice under section 13 (2) of Sarfaesi act was issued. We have replied the same in time, but no relief was given by the bank. Then we have filed S.A. in the year 03-03-2014 before D.R.T. Lucknow. The bank has also filed O.A. against us before D.R.T. Lucknow. No reply was even filed by the bank in S.A. though many dates have been fixed by the Tribunal for filing objection.
5. =>That an O.T.S. proposal was given to the bank through D.R.T. Lucknow to settle the case in worth Rs. 2.25 Crore but the bank did not accept the same.
6. =>That are all properties are mortgaged in favor of bankhaving present market value worth Rs. 15 Crore, as per bank value arrives about 11 Crore, now bank is threatening to us that we would not compromise in this case as more costly properties are mortgaged in bank’s favour.
There are following grounds of default on behalf of bank:
(a) -->That bank did not mention all the properties in notice 13(2) and afterwards bank has issued Notice U.S. 13(4) disclosing all the mortgage properties though in section 13(2) all mortgage properties are not disclosed.
(b) -->That no notice under section 13(2) and 13(4) were sent and served upon guarantor’s address.
(c) -->That in our account some amount was falsely debited the bank.
(d) -->That bank is not accepting our O.T.S. proposal as given by us for settling the account for worth Rs. 2.25 Crore
(e) -->That Bank is proceeded further in recovering the arbitrary amount against us and a possession notice was posted upon the property on 18-01-2014.
Kindly provide better solution in our interest so we can relieve the facing problem as on today.
I will be highly obliged.
With Thanks
Rajeev Varshney
President
Chandrakanta Banarsi Dass Public Society
+918881525251,varshney.k.rajeev@gmail.com
Mohammad
24 May 2014 at 17:48
Hello sir,
We have some agricultural land in a rural area in ranga reddy dist Andhra Pradesh. A High Voltage(HV) line power towers are going from our agricultural land. The length and breadth of the tower is 20 X 20 meters respectively. We are asking for the compensation of the land according to the revenue(government rate). The contractor is denying by saying he will pay the compensation only for the crop loss not for the land. In our locality The govt. rate is 10 lacks per acre , we are loosing 6 guntas of land , the contractor is paying only Rs 20,000. Moreover they didn't give any notice to the land owners and directly they are digging the land. When we the owners asked the contractor who gave you the permission to dig our lands, His replies are,"WE ARE DOING GOVT WORK WE DON'T NEED OWNERS PERMISSION,THEIR IS AN ACT 19XX, ACCORDING TO THE ACT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE THE WORK WITHOUT TAKING THE LAND OWNERS PERMISSION" . Our question is, are they going legally? If not what actions can we take on them?. Can we stop the work? If yes, what is the procedure? Is it true that they will pay the compensation only for crop loss not for land?
We will be highly thankful to you if u give a sincere legal advice on this issue.
sandeep rane
24 May 2014 at 14:49
If the Government employee has retired from service then in that case is it necessary to give notice under section 80 CPC before filling Civil Suit for Possession?
Thank you.
sandeep rane
24 May 2014 at 14:43
If the Government employee has retired from service then in that case is it necessary to give notice under section 80 CPC before filling Civil Suit for Possession?
Thank you.
Shrikant
24 May 2014 at 14:10
Hello Experts,
I need information that, can the originator cancel registered "Declaration cum indemnity" document? if yes then what is procedure and tentative time it takes? Please help!
Kavindra
24 May 2014 at 10:17
What is Chakbandi? What does Jot Chakbandi Akar Patra 23 stand for? Thanks and Regards.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Mact law on 163 a cases
An accident occurred between a tractor and truck owing to sole negligence of truck. A state case ensued on basis of FIR got registered by driver of tractor wherein charges have been framed against only owner of truck and trail has begun. An MACT case was filed by family of deceased U/s 163-A of MACT Act which was disposed of by Award of joint and several liability between owners of tractor and truck. AN FAO has been preferred in High Court on these counts:-
1. The MACT decided case considering Sarla Verma judgment which was passed in case U/s 166 Act while the present matter was filed U/s 163-A Act and cut of 50% was done on income of deceased and not cut of 1/3rd as per second schedule.
2. Multiplier was fixed according to Sarla Verma judgement and not second schedule.
3. The age of dependants was also considered in addition to considering age of deceased at the time of death
4. Joint and several liability was fixed on both truck and tractor owners/drivers, while the dependants want to recover only from tractor driver/owner as the truck driver is dead and the owner has no means.
Few facts relating to case are that the tractor being a goods carrier had passengers although it was gratuitous ferrying on insistence of deceased.
The liability of tractor driver/owner has been fixed only on alleged reason of overloaded tractor which is not so in reality as evident from FIR and evidence of Pws themselves.
The family of deceased has been given one lakh from religious place from where the tractor was giving his gratuitous services.
There are many more earning members in family besides deceased.
Now, the question is a) do the above facts help the tractor owner/driver.
b) does not sarla verma judgment apply in cases of 163-A , even as guide?
c) is second schedule applicable strictly to cases under 163-A, without any other considering factors
d) is it prerogative of victims family from whom to recover compensation even if the Tribunal has fixed joint and several liability on both vehicle owners.
kindly help