pritesh
04 September 2016 at 11:28
I have taken admission in Gujarat University on the basis of MBA with 56% because I have below 45% in graduation level
My MBA degree approved by UG it is also accepted by Gujarat University before taking admission.
Now as per Gujarat University LLB manual eligibility criteria is “The candidates having below 45 % at the Graduation Level Examination (Qualifying Examination) but having 45 % or more than 45 % at the Post Graduation Level is eligible to take admission in Three Years’ LL.B. Program"
After taking admission college and university saying we cannot give admission on the basis on MBA because whole MBA is not post graduate degree that is only reason they want to cancel my admission. I tell they giving me in writing reason for cancellation they are saying please do the inquire in university. And university not giving me proper answers even Law Faculty Principal too.
Please give advice for legal action. Should I file PIL in court or any thing else. --thanks
Mahesh Chand Gupta
04 September 2016 at 09:48
A case under section 138 NI Act was filed in 2004 for a dishonour of cheque for the Amount of Rs. 3,21,500/-. the judge gave his final judgement in the case ordering the accused to either give Rs. 3,21,500/- to the petitioner or face 1 year simple imprisonment.
Now, the accused has filed an appeal in the district courts for acquittal.
Can the petitioner submit his own prayer in the appeal filed by the accused of punishing the accused with 2 year imprisonment and doubling the cheque amount to be paid to the petitioner?
If yes, what is the procedure and the format of the application?
Y Singh N Rajput
04 September 2016 at 08:38
Mr Y filed a police complaint against Mr X for fraud. Police investigated and subsequently arrested Mr X, (who took bail). The case dragged for 15 years. Meanwhile the police inspector expired without examination by court. Mr Y did not attend to the court. The court acquitted Mr X for want of evidence. Mr Y has evidence now wants to restart this case. Is it possible? The case was between Government v/s Mr X.
Nishant Bakliwal
04 September 2016 at 07:53
My name is Nishant Bakliwal.I am in a loving relationship with a girl from last 2 years.she will be of 18 years of age in feburary.we are very serious for each other and we want to be marry.but her family member will not agree because my age is of 24 years and i had done cs/mba/bba.
i am very tensed what should i have to do now because in court marriage court sends a notice to family it will leads to a problem and i want that court does not send a notice to family ...is it possible..? and also i want to know that arya samaj marriage is valid or not in the eyes of law...or is it compulsory to register a marriage in the court for its validation after having arya samaj marriage..please help me please please please..
i will always pray for your best.
Help me...!!
8233386477
Sushil kumar
04 September 2016 at 06:58
Dear Sir,
My house criminally trespassed by criminal nature relatives in year 2006, evicted by court order in 2014, ownership final by Honorable High court Chandigarh RSA 4362,
Can be read on High court web site.
before trespasser submitted false suit of permanent injunction, their stay application was dismissed, later this suit dismissed as withdrawn
RSA 4362 was pending in High court, two judgements CJ(SD) AND FAC on record trespasser submitted false SUIT OF DECLARATION with same draft submitted 7 times in court of law.
application submitted by me for mandatory statement high court rule order 7 rule 1 (j)
A statement to the effect that no suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction, and if so, with what results” (15.3.1991).
this above statement is not submitted to date it is near about two years, application submitted on 30.10.14 by me
COURT OF LAW ALSO FORGET, IT WAS IN ZIMNI ORDERS UP TO FEB 15, LATER NOT MENTIONED IN ZIMNI ORDERS.
PLEASE ADVISE IF NO REPLY BY PLAINTIFF WHAT RESULTS, IF REPLY WHAT RESULTS.???, CASE DECIDED UP TO HONORABLE HIGH COURT
THANKS AND REGARDS
SUSHIL KUMAR MEHTA +9418621618
sushilmehta2003@gmail.com
Deepak
04 September 2016 at 06:45
Dear All
What grounds should be there for conviction u/s 498a and 304b ipc..??
I mean what are the basic ingredients of said above both sections in eye of law which r to be proven..??
Ajay Shukla
04 September 2016 at 04:08
A man who is the sole earner becomes a member of a housing society. The society allots him a house. The man pays the society by taking loan in his own name and then pays the entire loan amount from his salary by installments.
Although the society has allotted the house only in his name, the man gets the house registered jointly with his wife as co-owner.
The man writes a will regarding disposal of the property after his death.
Q-
Is such a will still valid now that wife as the co-owner is the survivor?
Can the wife later dispose the property according to her wishes by altering the will of the deceased husband?
Suvo
04 September 2016 at 01:14
Is online Poker game legal in India. I WANT TO START AN ONLINE POKER GAME IN INDIA. PLZ LET ME KNOW IS IT LEGALL IN INDIA OR NOT.....
Tarun bandhe
04 September 2016 at 00:14
Sir my grand parent is on imprisonment in central jail for convicting murder. In November my elder sister marriage is decided. Can we take 3days leave or bail for him
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Maintainability of fdp proceedings
A sole plaintiff filed FDP against 15 of his family members (defendants) seeking to partition his share in the undivided family dwelling house. During the pendency of the FDP, the sole plaintiff and 9 out of the 15 defendants, without the permission of the trial court, sold their undivided shares to a stranger. The sale of the undivided shares was also not brought to the notice of the trial court by the sole plaintiff & 9 defendants. The remaining 6 defendants were not aware of the sale transactions.The stranger,who has admitted in his affidavit in support of his I.A.for impleadment that he is aware that the property is the subject matter of the FDP, after sitting quiet for 3 years, thereafter applied to the trial court seeking to be impleaded as plaintiff no:2, which was rejected on the ground that it is barred by Section 52 of T.P.Act. On appeal,the high court,in its wisdom permitted the stranger to be impleaded as defendant no:16 and NOT as plaintiff. Accordingly, the stranger is impleaded as defendant no:16 in the FDP. The FDP is still pending and shares of the coparceners is yet to be decided and the shares of the coparceners is yet to be divided by metes and bounds.In the light of the above, the following questions arise:-
1) Whether the FDP is maintainable in view of the fact that the sole plaintiff and 9 defendants have sold their undivided shares in the undivided family dwelling house to a stranger.?
2) If the FDP is not maintainable, can the remaining coparceners file an I.A. on maintainability before the trial court.?
2) Whether the stranger-defendant no:16 can enforce his rights in the present FDP to get the undivided shares that he has purchased from the sole plaintiff and 9 defendants demarcated against the remaining 6 defendants who have not sold their undivided shares in the family dwelling house.?
3) What is the remedy available to the remaining 6 defendants to save the undivided dwelling house from the stranger.?
Sir-Request you to kindly send me your valuable guidance and opinion on the above points. thank you very much.