prakash
15 October 2013 at 11:38
Dear sir
my father brother has planning to make a will of his share of 2 acres of land to his wife and to far a daughter,still the partition suit is pending in the court,her wife has filed a case for monthly compensation of 10,000rs,my father brother and his wife living seperatly past from 45 yrs without divorce ,he his not having the money to file,nor he not able to travel,what to do sir.plz advise
R.Manivasagan
15 October 2013 at 11:38
My client is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of registered Sale deed. Now the Local administration authorities, without getting any prior permission from my client and without giving proper notice to my client are trying to form a new road in my client's absolute property and they said it is for the benefit of public. Is it possible to resit their illegal activities?
M R Shaikh
15 October 2013 at 11:25
Sir please go through the case...
the applicant has filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief:-
(a) quash and set aside the impugned orders and
(b) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith
in service with all consequential benefits including continuity in service as of Scientific/Technical Assistant B
(c) direct the respondents to further consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Scientific officer/engineer-SB (District Information officer) with all consequential benefits
award costs of the proceedings and
pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant initially joined on the post of Scientific/Technical Assistant-B in National Informatics Centre (NIC) on 15.06.2006. He completed his training and probation successfully. During his service tenure at Chapra there was an advertisement issued by NIC for recruitment to the post of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB (District Informatics Officer). This post was of a higher level as compared to the post the applicant was working on. He, therefore, applied for the same and successfully passed the exam and the interview. He also appeared in the medical examination and was found to be fit.
3. On 07.09.2009 he received a Memo requiring him to appear before Joint Director, Vigilance, NIC, New Delhi on 10.09.2009 with all the original certificates including caste certificate submitted by him at the time of his initial recruitment in NIC. He complied by the instructions. However, on 22.12.2009, he received a Memo from the Vigilance Officer that the OBC certificates dated 13.06.2006 and 05.07.2006 submitted by him for the post of Scientific Officer/Technical Assistant-B as well as Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB including the OBC certificate dated 30.09.2005 (which was on State Government proforma) were got verified and were found not to have been issued by the competent authority. He was directed to show cause why action should not be taken against him for submitting unauthorized certificates. He submitted his explanation and after considering the same order dated 02.06.2010 was passed by which his services were terminated. He had preferred OA before Patna Bench in which directions were given as quoted above. In compliance of those directions, the impugned order dated 08.11.2011 has been passed by the respondents confirming his termination. The present O.A. has been preferred against this order.
This was the case, now Honble CAT order as follows...........................
Under these circumstances, we direct that the respondents may once again get an enquiry conducted with the help of District Authorities of Gonda to establish whether the claim of the applicant that he belongs to Behna (Dhuniya) caste and is not covered under creamy layer is true or not. For this purpose, the respondents may consider any of the certificates produced by the applicant including the certificate produced by the applicant dated 18.03.2010. If need be a responsible officer may be deputed to take District Authorities of Gonda to verify the claim of the applicant. We once again emphasize that is enquiry will be to ascertain whether the applicant actually belongs to Behna (Dhuniya) caste and was not in the creamy layer during the relevant period entitling him to the benefit of OBC reservation. This exercise will be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the claim of the applicant is found to be correct then he will be reinstated in service with consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and promotion. He will, however, not be paid back wages for the period he has not actually worked. In case his claim is not substantiated then he will be informed by a speaking order and the impugned order dated 08.11.2011 would be confirmed. With these directions, this O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
.................................................After this the respondent have reinstated the applicant in Service but they have not been giving promotion on the Scientific Officer/Engineer Sb post as pryaed in Prayer(C) of the O.A ..kindly suggest what to do in this case...neeed to file additional O.A or any other remedy..
Dr. Tirath Garg
15 October 2013 at 11:02
Sir, I filed suit for injunction and the trial court denied stay u/s 39 rule 1$2 CPC so filed appeal in Sessions Court.
Sir, the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak has wrongfully denied me the stay by relying upon fabricated account of facts and text of judgment of ld. Collector, Moonak in petition u/s 5 of the Pb. Public Premises & Land Act. Relying upon the fabricated statements of defendants i.e. E.O. Nagar Council Lehragaga the ld. Judge has observed,”It is apposite to state here that demarcation of suit land was conducted by Labh Singh, Field Kanungo at the instance of defendants in the proceedings under Public Premises Act, wherein bothers of plaintiff were found to be in illegal possession of the property of defendants. It was found that they had encroached and raised construction to the extent of 3-1/2 karams towards the Northern side and to the extent of 4-1/2 karams towards Southern side. This report clearly reflects upon the encroachment done by the brothers of the plaintiff upon the adjoining land of the defendants.”
Sir, the unambiguous observation of ld. Collector, Moonak under Public Premises Act reads,”I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the evidence on record. The petitioner claims to be owner of land measuring 1815 sq. feet which is comprised in Khevat no. 254 Khatauni no. 1850 Khasra no. 229, 1-5 and it is duly proved from entries in Jamabandi Ex. P1 and girdavri entries Ex. P2 on the file. It is also in evidence that the petitioner made a request for demarcation of land in dispute and on 24.4.2001 Labh Singh Field Kanungo provided demarcation wherein he reported that Brij Lal respondent s/o Balak Ram had encroached upon the land in dispute by raising construction of his house.”
Sir, kindly examine the demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo which states in crystal clear words that Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram has encroached and raised construction to the extent of 3-1/2 karams towards the Northern side and to the extent of 4-1/2 towards Southern side. Moreover Labh Sigh have attached a map with the demarcation report which clearly shows that on the western side Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram have done encroachment and constructed house. Sir Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram or any of his family member is not my brother.
Sir, no where in the orders of ld. Collector Moonak is written that Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal(my brothers) have done encroachment and no where in the report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo is written that Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal have done encroachment. After oral family partition Sheeshpal and Bir Jawahar Lal have sold land out of their own share to son and wife of Brij Lal s/o Balak Ram so I have nothing to do with that. Moreover my land is situated on Eastern side whereas encroachment has been done by Brij Lal on the western side.
Sir, I was not party to the case under Public Premises Act nor I had any relation with that so the orders of ld, Collector, Moonak are in no way binding on me therefore it was not required for me to place this judgment before the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak. It has never been established that even an inch of encroachment has been done by me neither in the report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo on 24.4.2001, nor in the demarcation report of Field Kanungo Lehra on 21.4.2011 and by a Commission headed by Tehsildar Lehra on 24.1.2013. Moreover my land is on the Eastern side and encroachment has been done on Western side.
Sir, I was born. brought up and educated at Lehragaga and shifted out for higher education and profession which is my fundamental right which the respondents have no right to question. Respondents have falsely stated in the court that I have sold all my property and I am no longer owner of any property which can be verified from the record on file.
Sir, the respondents gave willfully and with mala fide intention fabricated account of the orders of Ld. Collector, Moonak in Public Premises Act and demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo in the court with the intention of denying justice to me and gave false account that I have sold all my land and no longer owner of any portion. Even the fabricated submissions of respondents in the court show that they have intention to dispossess me from my lawful possession of my land that is why I filed this suit. Does their act amounts to committing perjury as laid down under section 191 of I.P.C. and are liable to be punished as defined under section 193 of I.P.C.
As the ld. Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Moonak has relied only on the fabricated statements of respondents and have not heard to my pleadings nor have read the judgment of Ld. Collector, Moonak under Public Premises Act and demarcation report of Labh Singh Field Kanungo nor the record on file to verify that I am lawful owner of land. Therefore I am entitled to relief.
Sonali Dasgupta
15 October 2013 at 10:57
Hello Experts,
We booked a flat worth 1.12Cr last month and paid the booking amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Next, the builder asked for a cheque of 20% of the property value in advance before the signing of the contract. We received a receipt for the same. The builder then encashed the cheque BEFORE we signed the sale agreement. On the day that we met the builder, they changed their terms of sale and so, we refused to sign the sale agreement. So, now the builder has a huge sum of money WITHOUT any sale agreement in place.
We have sent them a postal letter and many emails asking to cancel the booking and return the 20% advance (which they should NOT have encashed before the signing of the agreement) and refund the booking amount. However, they are not responding to our mails and not refunding any money. Please Advise what we should do....
Thanks and regards,
Sonali
vijay prakash heda
15 October 2013 at 10:01
unde Cst Act Shall I Apply C Forms for Cold Storage unit I am having Tin Number under Ap Vat Act
R.Arunachalam
15 October 2013 at 08:15
In declaration suit all the interested persons should be added. Pl give citations in this point.
In Need of Help
15 October 2013 at 06:15
Dear Experts,
Greetings
Our quarterly bill payment to Society was delayed by 15 days and due to this they are now in the new bill charging us for full quarter (90 days) and not for the no. of days delayed.
The last Bill was saying interest rate at 1.5% but they are charging at 2% stating that BMC is also charging at 2%.
Our Queries:
a) Are we suppose to pay for the entire 90 days of the bill period or only for the number of days delayed?
b) If the bill is stating 1.5% then can the society charge at 2%?
c) Can we refuse to pay at 2% even though they say that BMC is charging at 2% for since last year?
Kindly help us with your expert advice.
Thank you
Best Regards
Akshay R
15 October 2013 at 03:42
Dear Experts,
I had disputed a fraud transaction on my SC credit card in Feb-2013. The transaction was some 19,000 russian ruble (INR 34,000). When i submitted the dispute form i was informaed that investigation will take 45-90 days and i will receive formal communication. As i was living abroad since Jan-2013, i had updated the customer care both via email and over phone that i need all communication on my email and my postal address is no longer valid. For next 6 months i did not receive any communication from them. I contacted them again in July-2013 and then they said that they have completed the investigation in favor of the merchant and sent the transaction details to my mail address. I asked them to provide me the transaction details, details of the merchant, proof of purchase on my email, but they have not provided it till today. I have been calling them and writing email on a regular basis but they do not provide any specific answer. All they say is that it was a secured online transaction and i must pay immediately.
So now my question is -
1)What will happen next? How long can they stretch the case? What about the high intertest that they have adding all this time?
2)Do i have the right to demand proof of purchase and other transaction details from the bank? Since I do not have any information about the merchant, i cannot communicate with him.
3)Since i had clearly updated them about my living abroad status and my desire to receive all communications via email at the start of the dispute investigation. Is it my fault that i did not receive the document which they sent to my postal address?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
498a doubt
hello sir
My wife put false 498a case against me and my parents
I would like to know whether the social status matter in this case or not I am earing 70,000 per mnth. my faher is ex defence personnel getting more than 20,000 as pension.
and she said that we r harrsing her for additinal 3 lakhs dowry