vinod bansal
05 February 2009 at 21:13
R/Sir
I was success bidder for supply of sulphuric acid in a govt. plant,being success bidder acid was supplied by me on demand of plant,after one month without any reason or intimating me plant officer stopped my supply & called short term tender for the supply of acid for the same period for which my tender was going on.Being aggrieved i contacted to concern officers,they replied as now the rate of acid in market is much less than rete on which you are supplying us acid,i told them it is wrong as first of all there is no any down fall in rates secondly there was no any such condition in our contract that during the tender term if there is any down fall in rates govt. plant officers are free to call fresh tenders,ultimately i filed a civil suit & succeeded in getting injunction order from the court in my favour,court ordered defendent not to call/open fresh tender till further order of the court,now problem is that plant is still receiving acid from the open market & they are not receiving acid from me being success bidder/tenderer.Now question is this whether it is contempt of court or not,i want to file an application against defendent for contempt/disobedience of court order.plz help me.Thanks
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
05 February 2009 at 10:56
Can any of our members provide me the full text of the Delhi High Court Judgement permitting the restaurants and star hotels collecting in excess of the MRP.
allurisivajiraju
05 February 2009 at 08:17
Respected Seniors,
In a Partition suit, in the plaint some of the necessary parties to the suit are not added as parties by the PLintiffs.
Then the defendants taken a defence in their written statement about the non joinder of necessary parties to the suit.
Then Hon'ble Court framed issues exect the non joinder of necessary parties. Immediately the Defendants filed a petition to frame as issue about non joinder of necessary parties to the suit and the said petition was allowed by the Court.
In this case I am appearing for defendants.
In the above circustances is there any chance to dismiss the suit without conducting trial by Hon'Court since the plaintiffs are intentionally not mentioned their own family members as necessary parties to the suit?
Mohamed Ali
04 February 2009 at 14:59
A Sunni hanafi Family partition suit is decreed. As per decree male is entitle for 2/17th share and female is entitle for 1/17th share in the property. Decree consisted of two types of properties town properties and revenue lands.
Final decree proceedings filed in 1989 to execute the decree, the town properties were divided as per decree and part of final decree proceedings for town properties is completed in 1996,
Some LR’s of one of the plaintiff who are not entitle for share has been jointly allotted properties in town along with other heirs of plaintiff,
Now execution is pending for town properties, and other part of same final decree proceedings for revenue lands is still pending.
Now we have file and IA in pending final decree proceedings to strike out LR”s who are not entitle for share,
we also want to get back the town properties allotted in 1996 to those LR’s who are not entitle for share.
Whether we have to file a separate suit or we have to raise this issue in the pending execution or we can raise this issue in pending final decree proceedings for revenue lands.
rohit arya garg
03 February 2009 at 23:36
in case of personal bonafide necassity...a landlord filin a ejectment petition for the need of his son who is to retire from service and during the pendency of the ejectment petition he decrees the shop in dispute in favour of this son.(only the property in dispute partitioned and other properties left undivided amongst brothers). tenant filing reply to this amended title and changed circumstances as this was done to create paucity of accomodation as the shop under tenancy was given to the retired son whereas other shop lying vacant and used by other son as godown not decreed in favour of this son(retired).
On amended title and change of ownwership during pendency of the ejectment petition, the rent controller fixed an additional issue that IS THERE A RELATION OF LANLORD AND TENANT BETWEEN THE LANDLORD(SON)AND THE TENANT.the court not deciding this issue specifically but gave a noting regards this fact in other issue.
NOW MY QUERRY IS
1.)that can the appeal be remanded back to decide this issue.?
2, )is a seperate application required for this?
3. )any recent authority on this point?
4.)can tenant dispute to this partition/family settlement.?
5. )any recent authority on this point too
6. )is partial partition permissible.
N.B.----above pertains to the east punjab/haryana rent act
G. ARAVINTHAN
03 February 2009 at 08:42
Impact of joint family in muslim?
Whether muslim law recognizes joint family property or joint family business?
Can any one say about applicability of joint family concept or joint family property/business with citations?
Mohamed Ali
02 February 2009 at 17:42
A Sunni hanafi Family partition suit is decreed. As per decree male is entitle for 2/17th share and female is entitle for 1/17th share in the property.
The Decree schedule properties were of two types town property and revenue lands, Court ordered to appoint commissioner to divide town properties and for revenue lands the schedule of revenue properties were sent to respective deputy commissioners office
For survey and partition. As per decree
Final decree petition is filed in 1989 to divide the shares as per decree. For town properties commissioner was appointed and he divided the properties as per decree in the year 1995 and some parties were not satisfied, hence the file RFA and moved to high court and the appeal were dismissed and part of Final decree proceedings for town properties got completed in 1995.
The another part of same Final decree proceedings is till pending for division of revenue lands as per decree,
Some LR�s of one plaintiff who are not entitle for share as per Mohameddan law were brought on record in 1989 along with their other heirs, when petition for final decree proceedings was filed,
Even these LR�s have been allotted share in the town properties for which part of final decree proceedings completed in 1995 in the same pending final decree proceedings. As we were not following the case we did not object till now, But now we have filed a Interlocutory application in the pending Final decree proceedings to strike out LR�s of plaintiff who are not entitle for share,
As the Final decree proceedings for town properties got completed in 1995 and now the only the execution is pending for town properties,
We want to take back the town properties allotted to these LR�s who are not entitle for share, Our advocate says we have to file a separate suit it cannot be done in this pending final decree proceedings of revenue lands as part of final decree proceedings for town properties completed in 1995.
Is it right can we can question in this part of pending Final decree proceedings to take back the town properties allotted to those LR�s who are not entitle for share or we have to file a separate suit to get back town properties.
Legal Eagle
02 February 2009 at 15:00
Is a will required to be registered and /or notarised before a Notorial?
Ramesh
01 February 2009 at 18:58
Can a person ask Registrar/Sub-registrar for a copy of Registered Will (copy) of dead person? Is there any bar?If refused,Can i use RTI Act.2005 for the same?
Matter is very URGENT nature.I request, Learned members of the forum to reply me at the earliest!
With Regards...
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Conflict between Special and General law
In The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 section 34 is there for Appeals. But an appeal is filed u/r 41 of C.P.C.
Whether the appeal; despite of Special Law and Provision, filed under General Law is tenable?
Please suggest any caselaw on the point of non maintainability of the civil appeal.