kirtirani sole
22 August 2009 at 12:47
Respected Sir/Madam
Could I get the information of the case Lonrho Ltd V Shell Petroleum CO. Ltd -brief facts and principle laid down especially issue related to liability of holding ompany towards subsidiary company in this case or suggest any link related to it.
Thanks & Regards!
Kirti
Rajath Chandran
22 August 2009 at 12:12
Dear Seniors, I have a querry on sale of Car parking slots by the flat promoters.
When we purchase an undivided share of land in the transaction of purchasing a flat in an apartment, I presume that we are sold an undivided share of land. Like this, all the owners of the flat should be sold some undivided share of the land on which the apartment is being built.
Logically, if we put together all the undivided share of the land sold, it should tally with the whole of extent of land owned by the flat promoter (subject to certain extent of land statutorily left).
At this stage, now let us assume that I need to have a car parking within the premises. Most of the promoters are selling parking slots to the intending owners at some rates fixed by them.
My doubt here is that when the individal owners have purchased the whole of extent of land (of course each one purchasing some undivided share), how come the promoter sell again a place for consideration.
I understand that the calculation of undivided share includes this area where the car parking is alloted.
If my question is correct, would like the seniors to suggest their reply. If my assumption is wrong, then pleae clarify how the undivided share is being calculated in apartments.
Rajath Chandran
99464 45067
A Truthseeker
22 August 2009 at 09:28
prevention is better than cure. so, are lawyers' role more important than doctors'?a man first quarrels, then ffights, then gets injured, then treated by doctor.
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
22 August 2009 at 09:05
frinds,
my client driving his tractor,sudden four person comes and robbery that tractor.
the tractor was full insured.
my clint has no driving licence .
without driving licence can he claim his insured sum?
is there any need of driving licence on the matter of robbery case?
any case law regarding this ....
Member (Account Deleted)
22 August 2009 at 06:08
A partition suit is filed by one brother against other. There are three sisters alive. Date fixed for filing W/S. on that date instead filing WS can the defendant brother file an application under O1 R 10(2) for joining sisters? (All Hindu)
Hetram Bishnoi
22 August 2009 at 00:31
effect of keshavanand bharati case on Indian constitution
PRAKASHCHANDRA MARU
21 August 2009 at 23:10
hello all learned experts
in the accident case i joined the oppsite party vehiclw owner and the insurance comapny by whom accident done with theapplicant (applicant means claimanant of the claim case) but i have not joined the vehicle's owner and insurance compny of the compalainat what effect of it it will the effect the case the reason not join the said claimaint's vehicle is that there was no any negligency on the part of them psl inform thanks in advance
Member (Account Deleted)
21 August 2009 at 22:11
A Complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
Does a revision lie u/s 398 only? Is a revision u/s 397 not maintainable?
Is it correct that u/s 398 Cr.P.C. Revisional court can only order inquiry and cannot exercise any other Revisional powers?
Is it correct that for exercising powers u/s 397 Cr.P.C. original records have to be mandatorly called for from the lower court? Does not the Revisional court have power to rely upon copies produced by the parties?
Member (Account Deleted)
21 August 2009 at 22:08
S.304A of IPC reads - "Whoever causs the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act....."
Suppose the sentance would have been, "Whoever causes the death of any person by any rash or negliggent act...". Would the meaning differ?
Does the use of the word "doing" in the section has any significance
Is there a difference in meaning of the two sentance mentioned in the query. One with the word "doing" and the other without the word "doing".
According to me both the sentance make sense. If both the sentance are making the same sense, then is not the word "doing" in the first sentance redundant?
According to me though both the sentance make sense, they may not be meaning the same. If that is so what is the difference in the meaning?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
How to handle the trial of the case?
The fact of the case is:
A (Defacto Complainant/Complainant)buys a car in 2001 his brother's sons (B & C)just take the car for a ride and didnot turn up for three days and after the fourth day they rang up and say due to their urgency they sold the car and they will pay the money in two or three days. A lodged complaint with the police against B & C and the police and Road Transport Office were in search of the car and the B & C. After nearly 5 months with the help of three neighbour state police and Road Transport Offices, the car was traced and its new owner(!) was arrested and from him the address of the B & C were obtained. Warrant taken and arrested B& C and brought him to the court by the police and FIR states the IPC sections 410,411,414,415 & 425 of offences they did.When the case is in its trial stage, the Court transfers the case to 'Lok Adalat' and try settle the matter amicably and the Accused agreed to pay the car sale value with in 3 months and they issue a cheque for the amount. The cheque bounced again the Complainant was in search of the B & C and finally they brought into the court after NBW was taken against them by filing a cheque bounced case(138 NI Act) for their willful default. After some hearings the accused pleaded the court to transfer this matter also to the Lok Adalat along with the previous case pending with them that they intend to settle the matter there itself. Against the intention of the Complainant court transfer it again Lok Adalat for settlement of both the case. There the B & C agreed to pay the cheque amount within 3 months and initially they paid Rs.75,000(for 1,90,000/-) and another Rs.80,000/- was paid in small instalments on the hearings and a balance of Rs.35,000/- is still kept pending even after the completion of 5 years of the transfer of the 138 NI Act case. The Complainant accepted the amount before 6 years that too the accused agreed to pay within 3 months. But even after 6 years the accused did not pay the full amount and they were continuously absent for the Lok Adalt. Finally last month since the complete settlement could not be effected the Lok Adalat remanded both the cases to the trial court. Now in the trial Court the accused represents he is ready to pay the balanace of Rs.35,000 plus another 5,ooo/- and demanding us to accept since the amount was agreed earlier. Now the complainat says since the accused made him to wait for nearly 6 years and even now they did not complete the payment of the agreed amount he demands another 1 lakh or else to conduct the trial of the case. The Proof affidavit filed and documents are marked in both the case. Since the accused admitted their offence(by paying the amount in parts) is any chance of requesting the trial court to pass order without the trial(documents are also marked)? Is there any rule or section in CrlP.C. to demand such. The Complainant is now 85 years old and sick and he may not be able to attend the trial(he is an ex-policeman)? Please advice me