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?
rakesh dahiya
18 May 2010 at 12:58
please clarify if commercial LPG can be sold against D1&D2 if so pl . clarify the category of users.Also whether the buyer can claim the input.What is the right of a regd. vat dealer to take goods against D1/D2 and what is liability of the seller if the assessing authority disallow the form D1 or D2.This is specifically for haryana state.
Chintan Shah
18 May 2010 at 12:35
Dear colleagues,
What is the meaning of the word "Sapindaship" referred to in the Hindu Law?
Thanks in adv...
Regards
Chintan
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?
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 11:51
एक आदमी A ने एक फ़र्म F through its properitor P के खिलाफ minimum wages का केस किया है. उसका कहना है की उसे उसकी पूरी मजदूरी नहीं मिली है. जबकि P इस फ़र्म F का prop. ही नहीं है. P ने अपने वकील के through एक affidavit submit किया था की मैं इस फ़र्म का prop. नहीं हूँ. इस फ़र्म के असली prop. ने भी एक affidaviy submit किया की में इस फ़र्म का prop. हूँ तो ये केस मेरे खिलाफ होना था और वोह आदमी झूट बोल रहा है. ऑथोरिटी minumum wages इस बात को नहीं मान रहे हैं. they have given their decesion against firm F through its properitor P that pay the balance amount to that person.
What the person P can do.
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”.
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 10:59
IM A CHEMICAL DEALER.IAM SELLING CHEMICALS WHICH ARE APPLIED FOR PROCESSING OF SEMI FINISHED LEATHER INTO FINISHED LEATHER.IAM SELLING THESE CHEMICALS AGAINST FORM XVII.
BUT NOW I HAVE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM CTO SAYS THAT THE CHEMICAL SHOULD NOT BE SOLD AGAINST FORM XVII FOR PROCESSING OF SEMI FINISHED LEATHER INTO FINISHED LEATHER SINCE THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY INVOLVED AND NO NEW COMMERCIAL COMMODITY IS EMERGED.
SO CAN I KNEW THAT IT IS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR NOT? CAN THE CHEMICALS BE SOLD AGAINST FORM XVII?
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 10:51
Respected Sir,
I am currently working in Government of India. I am now in Probation Period. I have a question to that...
Can I Apply any other Government jobs through proper channel in my probation period ?
Please reply me...
Sanjay
Anonymous
18 May 2010 at 10:33
Dear Friends
Please guide me on this issue.
Minimum wages can or can not bifercated for PF deduction.
For Example
Minimum wages in Delhi Central is Rs.273/
Pf deduction shall attract the Rs 273
Or
Can We Bifurcate like
Basic RS180
HRA RS 93
Is it correct way PF deduction will be based on RS. 180/
For fixed monthly salry. If gross salary is more than Minimum wages, but basic is less than minimum wages.Is it correct for PF Deduction on less than minimum wages Under PF Miscellaneous Act 1952
What will be basic for PF deduction
Please Guide me on this issue
Regards
Rahul
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Defamation case
What are the requirements to file a defamation case ?