pratik
05 August 2010 at 23:07
1) Pls tell me whether Caveat as per section 148 A of the CPC can be filed under the income tax , sales tax , excise matters which are at high court proceedings. (In simple the judicial proceddings which are at high court relating to the income tax , sales tax , excise matters than Caveat as per section 148 A of the CPC can be filed ?
2) Also if anticipatory bail is given & the person to whom the anticipatory bail is given & no FIR is lodged against him to arrest him then what will happen to anticipatory bail given & who is laible or what is the further process to be taken to close the case .
Thanks In Advance.
pratik
05 August 2010 at 22:56
1) A bail permitee transacts bail entirely based out of their own funds (which must be considerable) without a surety insurance company backing them. A bail solicitor is licensed only to transact bail for one employer. They cannot work for themselves or any other company but the one they I initially contract with. Neither if these are common. Bail AGENTS, who are backed by sureties and can work for themselves OR any other bail company, are mist common.
2) Injunction is a restraining relief. Interim injunction is a variety or form of interim relief, which is a broader category. Normally when the plaintiff or petitioner establishes a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favour and if he would be subject to much or irreparable harm unless some urgent relief is granted pending the main relief asked for in his suit/petition, then the interim relief is granted in his favour. The order awarding interim relief in no way decides the merits of the case. Nor can it be a res judicata; nor can it establish any ratio decidendi. It is but a discretionary and equitable relief by the Courts to maintain the status quo pending disposal of the cases or to reach some immediate relief and justice to the aggrieved party so that he can pull on further and pursue the case and his livelihood, etc.
Interim relief can be of various forms - positive and negative, whereas injunction is generally or exclusively negative. It restrains the defendant or any third party from carrying out any specified action detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff/petitioner pending disposal of the case. As already stated, injunction is a subset within the broader set of interim relief. Normally interim relief granted should not be equal or equivalent to the final relief requested for - of course in very exceptional circumstances the Court can and may grant even such interim relief as equivalent to the final relief requested for.
Query : Pls Comment on the above mentioned topic if possible with the case laws. Also I want to know which section says the above mentioned one's.
Thanks In Advance.
pratik
05 August 2010 at 22:42
Pledge means possessing the movable property whereas Hyphothecation is possessed on immovable property. Possession of property will be with the lender in case of hyphothecation possession of property will be with borrower itself.
Query : Which sections says the above mentioned ones. Also Difference between Lien & morgagte because i think both the defination are same. Also which sections says the defination of pledge, mortgage, Hypotehication & lien.
Thanks In Advance.
Thanks In Advance.
Anonymous
05 August 2010 at 22:27
Grand father had executed a Registered Will regarding his exclusive properties in the year 1980 stating after his demise the same will deolve upon his grandsons to be born to his son. On the date of the execution of the said Will he did not have any grandsons. Subsequently he had two grand sons. Before the death of the testator one of his grandsons died; subsequently the Testator also died without executing any Will. Under these circumstances, whether the living grandson alone is entitled to the entire property or his mother being legal heir to deceased grandson is also entitled to half share. Kindly clarify.
Anonymous
05 August 2010 at 22:20
Dear Sir, My mother started a shop nearly 10-12 years ago who was the member of co-operative bank & took a loan(Jaat Jamin) of Rs. 39900 on 1/12/00 @ 13.5% of interest rate to be repaid in 6 monthly installment of 6650 + interest.. Within 3 yrs she paid Rs. 21400/- & Rs. 3000 on 15/09/06 & Rs.5000 on 23/7/10 (Total Rs.28400).. We closed the shop in 2004 due to loss when she informed to settled the loan account but they did not responds..
She went 2-3 times for settlement but they used badwords & insulted her hence she stopped visiting bank. Further we just got 2-3 notice regarding payment of loan from bank but not a single notice regarding settlement of loan. Now after many years they came back with statement which doesnt show any amount deducted from Principle amount & asking for outstanding Amount of Rs. 80,334/-..Or else they were asking to pick up all house hold goods which are mostly purchased by me.
Pls. advice on these. Are they authorized to take goods of mine ?
Pls. pls. advice me so that we can clear out this matter.
Balakumar.S
05 August 2010 at 22:17
I want to know the legal position as to the registration of power of attorney regarding an immovable property. Whether the registration of the same is mandatory or not?
Anonymous
05 August 2010 at 22:17
DEAR SIR,
MY BROTHER HAS MADE AN UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION ON THE UNCONSTRUCTED SECOND FLOOR OF HOUSE IN DELHI WILLED TO ME . THE WILL IS PROBATED AT DELHI HIGH COURT.
I LEARNT IN 1999 THAT HE HAS UNAUTHORISEDLY CONSTRUCTED A ROOM AND A TOILET. I TOOK UP THE MATTER WITH MCD, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE COMMISSION REGULARLY. NOTHING HAPPENED.
I SOUGHT REASONS FOR NOT ACTING BY MCD FOR DEMOLITION THROUGH RTI.
THE CHIEF INF OFFICER IN JULY 2009 PASSEED SEVERE STRICTURES ON MCD AND ITS CORRUPT WAYS.
FROM 2004 MY BROTHER IS RUNNING AN ILLEGAL GUEST HOUSE ON THIS FLOOR IN VIOLATION OF MCD AND DELHI POLICE ACT LAWS. THIS MATTER TOO WAS REPORTED TO MCD AND THE POLICE DEPT BUT NO ACTION.
MY QUERY IS:
SHOULD I FILE A CASE IN HIGH COURT SEEKING MANDATORY INJUNCTION AGAINST BROTHER , POSSESSION OF PROPERTY, MESNE PROFITS AND MANDATORY INJ FOR MCD TO DEMOLISH AND POLICE TO STOP GUEST HOUSE , ALL IN ONE PETITION AS SUGGESTED BY MY LAWYER OR
SHOULD I FILE SEPARATELY A WRIT AGAINST POLICE AND MCD
AND FILE A SEPARATE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
KINDLY ADVISE AND THE REASONS FOR YOUR ADVICE.
I REPEAR MY LAWYER SAYS THAT THE WRIT IS TIME BARRED WHICH I FEEL IS WRONG AND HE SAYS THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION IS DISPUTED WHICH IS NOT.
WHEN I REPORTED TO MCD IN 1999 ABOUT THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION IT RAISED THE TAX CITING CONSTRUCTION ON SECOND FLOOR AND SO IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT WAS AWARE OF THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION BUT DID NOT ACT.
KINDLY ADVISE
pratik
05 August 2010 at 21:56
438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for direction under this section; and that court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the even of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
Query : So we can say that if the offence is bailable than this section can't be used for anticipatory bail or we can say that if the offence is bailable than anticipatory bail is not grant. Pls advice or comment or anyu case laws.
Thanks In advance.
WHATSAPP 91-8075113965
05 August 2010 at 21:37
sirs,
in a theft case, arrest, seizure, investigation, and charge submitting everything has been done by same police officer. but, during trial, he was not available, as he was in sudan, serving with UNO.BUT, another officer of same police station was examined on his behalf, to prove his signature.but, he could not say anything about, arrest, seizure...etc, as he has not accompanied the said officer.
sirs, please tell me how far this will affect the prosecution case ?
also, suggest me some useful citations, which will be helpful for the defence side .
thanking you sirs,
SALIL KUMAR.P
ADVOCATE
THALASSERY-670101
MOB : 9447536929
advocatesalil@gmail.com
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Arbitration Award
Though the High Court ordered reference to Arbitration on 09.04.1987, the Arbitration actually started in March 2009 and the Award has been made on 22.05.2010;
Future interest from the date of Award has been restricted to only 9% p.a. as it is for the earlier period since cause for arbitration arose;
How can the rate of Interest be enhanced to realistic level, say @ 18% p.a. ?
Can any action of the High Court which allowed arbitration in 1987, be helpful in realising the Award from PSU-Insurer ?