Amit
20 April 2014 at 14:19
hello, I am Amit staying in the city of mumbai in one of its suburbs. Ours building is about 52 yrs old and is going for a Redevelopment. We stay in a pagadi system were the owners are the Trusties of our cast. The trusties have sold the said property which is around one Acre.Now there is a Tri party Agreement between the tenents, the trusties and the builder. After the redevelopment the trusties will have no control on us cause we will get our new homes on an ownership basis as per the Agreement made. now some one and a half year back the consent was sighned between the Tenents and the builder. At that time my father was alive and he made the sign on the consent letter for redevelopment. But latter he passed away and so after that since I was staying with him so I got NOC from my brother and two sisters and so the flat was than made on my name. Now just before redevelopment the builder is asking me to get another set of NOC and Indemnity bond from my legal heirs that is my sisters and my brother though the flat is in my name and was made on my name by giving the Affidavis and the NOC to the
Trusties. So is it neccessary for the builder to ask for the NOC of my legal heirs in that case when the flat is in my name.
2 - Can he ask another consent letter and get a sign in it just as my fathet have given him sign when he was alive.
amit
20 April 2014 at 14:17
I stayed in Mumbai for 7 years out of 8 years of our married life. One day without my knowledge my wife left home after calling her brother and took away our 3 years old daughter and all costly items (jewelry, my silver coin collection, my business cash & all her documents including her cheque books) with her. She went to her fathers place in W.B. after filing a complain(NC) at the local police station at Mumbai stating that I physically abuse her for small reasons and use foul language for her parents. I went to the police station to search her when she did not come back home & I found her mobile switched off. I found out about the complain and submitted a letter with acknowledgement in the reply stating the facts. The information that her brother has come was given to me by the police itself. I have never ever abused her physically & she has never even had the smallest of injury in 8 years of our marriage.
She filed an FIR under sec 498 A,504,34 against me and my parents and married sister after 17 days. She has stated this fact in her FIR that we used to stay alone for last 7 years. All of us got AB from Kolkata high court.Now I want to file a quashing petition by only co accused.
She has given all cause of action in Mumbai and there is no mention of her fathers place where the FIR has been registered. No proof has been submitted with the FIR She has used the name of co accused only in one line saying my father, mother & sister provoked me to do all such acts of physical and mental torture.
She wants divorce ASAP and also alimony by selling my parents flat which they recently purchased. But I have decided to fight it out and also want her back by giving her time and space to cool off and want her to go through professional councelling sessions with me (which she is avoiding) before taking such harsh step of divorce. I also want to defeat the mindset of blackmail by misusing women protection laws for getting out of the marriage quickly.
My question to the experts is whether the co accused should go ahead with filing the quashing application on the basis of lack of jurisdiction & vague alligations on co accused or should they wait for the charge sheet and then proceed for the quashing.
She filed two more false cases on me subsequently when she came to know about my bail. Please advise.
Prince Kumar Tiwari
20 April 2014 at 13:59
Can anyone give me the format of AOA as per Table C of companies Act, 2013 for section 25 company not having share capital and limited by guarantee ????
Please it's urgent.
Thank You.
Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.]
20 April 2014 at 13:50
The following is Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
7B. Arbitration of disputes. – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially or generally for the determination of disputes under the section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.
It appears to me that this is draconian provision not befitting a democratic republic.
This section was introduced as an amendment in the year 1959, full 9 years after the Constitution of India came into force.
Can anyone enlighten me what was the provocation in 1959 for this amendment? It may be available in the Parliamentary proceedings or in the Gazette notification then
RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
20 April 2014 at 13:26
Dear Sir, I rented one shop to open Ice Cream Parlor. My landlady is a widow of 55 yrs old and lives alone. She made a market complex outside her residence.She initially was soft and co-operative. We made an agreement and she assured me to help.
But just after my investment she had taken U turn and she refused to give electricity, regularly she threatens me to evacuate and even she calls police more often to put pressure on me.
Now my concern is that "Is their any way where court sends direction to the lady to settle all issues in front of the judiciary?" Because after this only I can prove my credential and prevent my investments.
Amanpreet Singh
20 April 2014 at 13:00
A Corner 10 acres of Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 in 1981 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken the award under protest. Government has given the land to a Private Party. And now the same land is still vacant from 33 years. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. The M.D. of the private party was died after 7 years of acquirement. And then a steel business man purchase the major shares of the private concern and stopped hotel business. Moreover, the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) in 1994 near about half of the land acquired from the back of the corner side, for a factory of Steel Rolling Mill which is still running. And also from the left side, private party has given 35 feet wide road as a way to an other unauthorized private colony plots.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4 or can say it is unused from front side of 10 acres.
The land owner had taken money under protest in 1982 and writ a petition under civil suit in 1994. The total 10 acres land acquired, was of 20-22 owners, out of which only 1 owner ( yet confirmed ) has a High Court petition. And after 6 years of writ in Aug, 2000 they have a compromise with the private party to whom the land was given by government.
That ' COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES STATE THAT WITHOUT INTENDING TO CREATE ANY PRECEDENT, THEY HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE BY MUTUAL COMPROMISE. PRIVATE PARTY COUNSEL STATE THAT LAND MEASURING 1.33 ACRES OUT OF THE LAND ( 10 ACRES ) IN THEIR POSSESSION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS. AND THE PETITIONERS SHALL REFUND THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 % PER ANNUM ( SIMPLE AND NOT COMPOUND ). THE HANDLING OVER OF POSSESSION AND THE PAYMENT OF MONEY SHALL BE SIMULTANEOUS. '
Actual, the petitioners land falls on the main road when the total 10 acres of land was acquired and now private party is giving asymmetrical land from the back side before the rolling mill which is not of the petitioners. Where as the petitioners are ready to refund the payment with interest.
Again CM was filled in 2001 for writ petition on 1996 which was decided in 2012, that nothing is mention in the compromise about the land.
So, how and which law will be implicated so that petitioners will get their original land or is it right way that petitioners will take other land instead of their own.
Amol Rajadhyaksha
20 April 2014 at 11:54
I am planning to purchase house property for letting out and staying on rent in a house closer to my office. The legal ownership of the purchased property will be jointly with my mother. Also she will be a co-applicant for the home loan. In respect of funds, the equity will be entirely brought in by me and the EMI will also be serviced by me. I do not want my mother to go through the trouble of complicated tax filing. So can I show the entire rental income and the interest deduction benefit under my tax computation? The rent agreement will be in my name. Pls advise.
VIVEK SHARMA
20 April 2014 at 11:37
Sir i used RTI act for seeking information from KVS. i asked to send them some photocopy like resignation copy,relieving copy,no objection certificate copy etc.but, in the answers of most of the questions they wrote "NOT AVAILABLE".I am totally unsatisfied.So,please suggest me what i have to do next.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
N land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement
A Corner 10 acres of Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 in 1981 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken the award under protest. Government has given the land to a Private Party. And now the same land is still vacant from 33 years. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. The M.D. of the private party was died after 7 years of acquirement. And then a steel business man purchase the major shares of the private concern and stopped hotel business. Moreover, the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) in 1994 near about half of the land acquired from the back of the corner side, for a factory of Steel Rolling Mill which is still running. And also from the left side, private party has given 35 feet wide road as a way to an other unauthorized private colony plots.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4 or can say it is unused from front side of 10 acres.
The land owner had taken money under protest in 1982 and writ a petition under civil suit in 1994. The total 10 acres land acquired, was of 20-22 owners, out of which only 1 owner ( yet confirmed ) has a High Court petition. And after 6 years of writ in Aug, 2000 they have a compromise with the private party to whom the land was given by government.
That ' COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES STATE THAT WITHOUT INTENDING TO CREATE ANY PRECEDENT, THEY HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE BY MUTUAL COMPROMISE. PRIVATE PARTY COUNSEL STATE THAT LAND MEASURING 1.33 ACRES OUT OF THE LAND ( 10 ACRES ) IN THEIR POSSESSION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS. AND THE PETITIONERS SHALL REFUND THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 % PER ANNUM ( SIMPLE AND NOT COMPOUND ). THE HANDLING OVER OF POSSESSION AND THE PAYMENT OF MONEY SHALL BE SIMULTANEOUS. '
Actual, the petitioners land falls on the main road when the total 10 acres of land was acquired and now private party is giving asymmetrical land from the back side before the rolling mill which is not of the petitioners. Where as the petitioners are ready to refund the payment with interest.
Again CM was filled in 2001 for writ petition on 1996 which was decided in 2012, that nothing is mention in the compromise about the land.
So, how and which law will be implicated so that petitioners will get their original land or is it right way that petitioners will take other land instead of their own.