nashirul
01 September 2014 at 00:20
dear sir
The complainant is the wife of the main accused and had filed a case under section 406/34 i.p.c .The case is pending before the judicial magistrate for want of execution of the seizure.now both the complaint and the accused wants to o compromise the case. how it can be done.is it necessary that they have to filed a joint petition along with an affidavit.pls suggest.can court compound the case
after going through ur answer ,one of our learned counsel ask me whether any advocates has been engaged,yes sir ,both the parties has engaged advocate.the accused advocate will entered appearance on the next date.the accused advocate have advised that we the accused side have to take court bail.as the place is very far way from the residence ,the accused are not in a poistion to arrange surety for them.can we pay case amount as bail money.lastly can a joint compromise petition can be filed in the trial court.as the sections are compoundable .is section 34 is compoundable .And the main accused ,the husabnd of the complainant is dead.will trial magistrate will accept petition if the complainant say that she has nothing to say ,if the trial court discharged the acussed.do the trial court has power to discharged the accused or quased the complain,pls elinghten me.can the case .can this acse be closed without going for trial and high court.pls help me
Rajesh pujari
31 August 2014 at 21:21
hi to all i joined in tcs in march 2012 and quit in march ending with out informing.ow they send notice that i have to pay 60k .what i can do please help me
with regards
Rastogi
31 August 2014 at 20:36
Mortgagee was depossessed of usurfructory mortgage 20 years back, Mortgage money is still not paid. For some reason Mortgagee could not institute a suit immediately. Can we institute suit now? is it barred by limitation Act? Whether the limitation period is 12 years for adverse possession or 30 years
jayesh sinha
31 August 2014 at 20:06
In railway supreme court in pushpa rani vs union of india has give
gopalaswamyb
31 August 2014 at 20:00
This is a housing complex behind queensland poonamalee chennai. The builder has programmed 2 phases of construction with shopping complex, swimming poll etc. The first phase is nearing completion which has about 150 houses andalmost allof them sold out . The total occupants are about 30 or so and out of which only about 18 are owners and others are studemts.Swimming pool shopping complex water treatment plant sweage treatment plant promissed are yet to be constructed .while obtaning
Approvalfrom local body the builder hasgoven away
Some land. He has taken devolopment, and infrastructure charhes from all owners. The main road and some of the inner roads and some inner rbelong to local body. The garden also belong to localbody
Now he claims Rs 2 for built uparea without justifying his claim nor providing the promissed facity. He thretens tostopwater and other things like sewage street lightetc.
We donot know the other address of other owners wh
Now he is demanding Rs 2 per sqftofbuiltup
It is not possible toforman association with the meagre number of 18 when the house owners are about150 .
Pl let usknow whetherhe canstop the essentials and putus indifficulty, sincethe workforcewithhim, what is the safeguard
r.sankaranarayanan
31 August 2014 at 19:32
In the year 2006 the Hon. Secy and the Chairman of a Housing Society in Mumbai had circulated the notice for the AGM with some items on the agenda which was decided with only two members of the Managing committee present. They had cheated the members by issuing the notice. The other three had approached the Co-op. Court Mumbai to stop the AGM, which they cancelled with the reason "Due to unforeseen technical reasons". The Society had been asking for their explanations for their mis-conduct itemising the matter on AGMs and SGM. Last AGM they submitted an explanation that they had acted as per the byelaw no: 140 which the General Body rejected. The Society will again ask for their explanation in the ensuing AGM. What can be the penalty imposed on them. Can the General Body impose a punishment debar them from attending any SGM/AGM for 5 years. Or can the Society file a criminal complaint in Metropolitan Court since they had cheated the members, even though they had subsequently cancelled the meeting.
suresh babu
31 August 2014 at 19:31
Sir, my question is regarding my wifes ancestral property.
That is after her father!s father death (i.e grand father)her grandmaa along with is 4 sons & 2 daughter!s entered into a registered partition deed in 2004 over her grand father!s left over property & her grand maa!s self acquired property(both the property clubbed in one partition deed).
Now, in 2014 her father divided his inherited share of property through registered partition deed along with his 4 sons only & left out his 3 daughter!s(including her)
Sir,please clarify whether do she have rights over this property. If so what shall she do, advise .
ekta
31 August 2014 at 19:15
Dear Sir,
My friend has one will of her step mother who died in 1973 and the will was witten by her in 1972.
Will is written by her in favour of his husband for all immovable property that she had that time.Now the problem is will was written on simple watermark paper by one writer under his signature and witnessed by two persons known to him.Will is neither on stamps paper nor registered by any Govt Office or Court.
Father of my friend is alive yet.Now He want to sale the property.
The family position of my friend is, she has one step sister who is about 60 years old and married 35 years ago.
My friend are 2 sisters with same mother.
What is the authenticity of that will,How it can be utilised at the time of selling and what problems may arise in selling that property?
Please Guide me.
Adv B.B.Gambhir #9814820602
31 August 2014 at 18:53
respected members
as per law a child in the womb of mother has legal entity
my one of the collegue asked a question whether abortion is murder if yes then why the same is not equally penalised and why less punishment in section 313 IPC. if no, then why not it is murder.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Is ep maintainable
Decree for specific performance of sale of immovable property has been order by the trail court agaist 'A' in favor of 'B'.
'B' filled an executive petition by paying the balence sale consideration in the court.
'A' appeal before high court challenging the decree. Court stayed EP procedings.
'B' transferred the decree to new 'C' on receiving money through registered deed of assignment.
'B' requested high court to let him take his money as proceding are likely to take long time. Court allowed him to take his money on the undertakeing that he would re deposit if sale goes in his favour with in one month.
In the mean time 'C' tried to implead himself in the high court as a party as he got decree assigned by 'B'. High court directed him to apply in the execution court as execution petition is lying in the lower court.
'C' got himself impleaded in the execution court(but not in high court where appeal is lying) as second decree holder.
'C' requested the court to issue a cheque in his name for the amount paied by 'B'. B gave 'No objection'. 'C' has taken the money from the court.
Now,
'C' got in to settlement with 'A' with following terms.
---
'A' will withdraw appeal.
'C' will pay(amount higher than the amount in the decree) 'A' on or before dd/mm/yy.
"if 'C' does not pay on or before dd/mm 'A' has liberly to deal with his property as he wish.
if 'A' does not register the property 'C' can approach competent court to get the "decree" already passes executed.
---
'C' could not come up with sale consideration. So, 'C' paid 40% and 'A' and 'C' agreed to exted the time for 3 months
again 'C' could not come up with complete amount. 'A' and 'C' agreed to extend the time for 1 more month.
in the mean time 'A' got appeal withdrawn saying "parties got compromised" in the presence of counsel for 'A' and 'B'. As a consequence stay on EP is released.
'C' could not come up with money. caused a notice accusing 'A' demanded extra money and said he will approach court to get sale deed executed.
neither 'B' or 'C' could redeposit the 'decree' amount with in 1 month as said by high court order while allowing them(actually 'B') to with draw the amount
NOW, IS THE EXISTING EP MAINTAINABLE? SHOULD NOT THE 'C' FILE A DIFFERENT CASE BY PAYING CF FOR THE NEW AGREEMENT AMOUNT THEN GET DECREE.
Respected Experts I will be very thankful for your reply