Anonymous
29 April 2011 at 10:33
In Clause 10.2(g) of EXIM Policy under Chapter Deemed Export Benefits (g)........ Specific Investment of Rs. 100 crore or more. What is meant by 'Specific Investment' exactly?
Ragarajan
Advocate
Kumar Krishan Agarwal Advocate
29 April 2011 at 02:15
Dear Ld Friends,
1. I have a personal case of my mother. THat There is a Ancestral Property(abbreviated further as 'AP') who has 7 Co-sharers in the aforesaid AP. Suppose A to G are the seven share-holders/co-shares in the AP. The AP is a 'very small commercial shop' which cannot be divisible into everyone Co-shares A to G peacefully and get it individual premises for everyone co-shares?
The person 'A' purchased/bought on registered Deed a share of 'B' and now the co-owner of two shares in the AP.
The person 'G' was missing since birth/early childhood and have lost permanently from last 25 Years and neither we heard about it.
2. NOw I filled a partition Suit with seperate Possession before Civil Judge taking 'A'(two shares) Against/versus 'C', 'D', 'E' , 'F' and leave out G to make party in suit.
3. The person 'C' and 'D' are refusing to [ sell or dispose of or make a partition of the AP ] and creating obstacle in the suit to get the AP partitioned or may dispose of the value of the property in five co-shares according to para 2.
Now My queries Are:-
1. That How the court may partition or may dispose of the value of the property although 'C' and 'D' are not ready to sell or dispose of the partition neither nor they want to purchase the two share of 'A' neither Nor 'A' want to purchase the seperate share of 'C', 'D' and 'E'.?
2. That 'C' and 'D' are taking undue advantage of the commercial shop (AP) and are not sharing any mesne profits to 'A' and 'E' thru daily earnings from commercial shop.
So for stopping further misuse of earnings thru AP, I filed an injunction application under Order 39 Read Sec 151 CPC for the closing of the shop & stopping its daily business transaction permanently and may fix an official seal at the property until the subject matter will adjudicate before Civil Judge.
++ It is right to file such application under Order 39 to close the shop permanently till resolve of the partition suit?
3. It is any other method or mode or way to get out such partition suit in easy way or any section of law may help in this particular perplexed situation?
4. What other type of interlocutory applications may help so that the commercial property(AP) may closed permanently till the matter not get resolved fully before court?
Anonymous
28 April 2011 at 21:50
Sir,
Would you like to tell me the rule about Govt land allotment to CRPF serving personnel in Bihar which is is all over India.
What is the process of it.
How much land could i get.
What is Rule no.of Govt.of india
Anonymous
28 April 2011 at 17:41
Dear Sir
Recently, Adhara High court has given a judgement under The Building and Other Construction Workers Cess Act, 1996 and Rules, 1998.
If you have the copy of the same. Please send it to my mail id pramachandranster@gmail.com
Regards
Ramriven
ritesh
28 April 2011 at 12:38
Dear All,
Can you pl tell me as to what declaration are required to be displayed on the tags for jewellery.
JAIME
28 April 2011 at 00:51
SIR,
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION SANAD FOR AN AREA OF 425 SQUARE METERS A PERSON WENT TO THE EXTENT OF IMPERSONATING THE PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN FORM I&XIV OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS REPORTED TO THE DY COLLECTOR AND THE POLICE STATION OF THE OFFENCE AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR BEFORE THE JMFC. AFTER GATHERING THE EVIDENCE OF HANDWRITING ANALYSIS CHARGE SHEET IS FILED BEFORE THE JMFC. LATELY DURING INQUIRY IT WAS INFORMED THAT THIS CASE WAS FOR ARGUMENT BEFORE TRIAL. THE IMPERSONATER CLAIMES THAT HE WAS FALSLEY ACCUSED BY THE COMPLAINANTS. THE IMPERSONATER CLAIMS HE HAS BY MISTAKE AND WITHOUT KNOWING SIGNED THE NAME OF THE PERSON APPEARING IN FORM I&XIV AS IT IS AN ALIAS NAME OF HIS LATE FATHER. THE FATHER'S NAME IN BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE IMPERSONATOR DIFFERS FORM THE NAME APPEARING IN THE SAID FORM. MOREOVER THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROCEQUTOR IS THE WIFE OF THE LAWYER REPRESENTING THE IMPERSONATOR IN A CIVIL CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS LATLY ENCROACHED AND FRAUDULENTLY PARTITIONED PREVIOUSLY. THOUGH THE IMPERSONATOR HAS ANOTHER LAWYER REPRESENTING THE CRIMINAL CASE, THERE IS EVERY LIKELYHOOD OF A COMPROMISE AND FAILURE ON PART OF THE APP TO PENALISE THIS CULPRIT. I AM THE COMPLAINANT IS THERE ANY THING I CAN DO TO PREVENT THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
Anonymous
27 April 2011 at 22:50
Dear Sir/Madam,
The supreme court has ruled in September 2010 ""The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not flat within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organisation. The only right remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats.
"It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell stilt parking spaces as these are neither flat nor appurtenant or attachment to a flat, Justice Lodha writing the judgement said. The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of the promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court''s ruling that under the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act) a builder cannot sell parking slots in the stilt area as independent flats or garage."
I have bought an under-construction flat from a developer/builder in Faridabad, Haryana. The builder has charged me extra for EDC, Preffered Location Charge, Club Membership Charge, Fire Fighting Charge, Electrical Charges, Power Backup Charge, Covered Car Parking. ALL THE ABOVE ARE COMMON AMENITIES/SERVICES OR AREAS. PLEASE ADVICE IF LEGALLY A BUILDER CAN CHARGE ALL THE ABOVE CHARGES? PLEASE ALSO PROVIDE ANY REFERENCE CASE IF ANY.
arjun prajapati
27 April 2011 at 15:19
In Punjab there is Surcharge of 10% on vat ie. if our rate is 5% then after including surcharge vat =5.5%. Now my Query is given below
Sales value of goods=1,00,000/-
Output vat @5% =5,000/-
Surcharge on above =500/-
Party A/c is debited 1,05,500/-
Now in Punjab there is 2 parts of total tax payble is 90% & 10%.
If we take total tax as 5,500/-
90% = 4950/-
10%= 550/-
or
90% =5000(ie flat 5%)
10% =500 (ie 10% of 5000)
which one is correct.
JAIME
27 April 2011 at 14:55
SIR,
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION SANAD FOR AN AREA OF 425 SQUARE METERS A PERSON WENT TO THE EXTENT OF IMPERSONATING THE PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN FORM I&XIV OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS REPORTED TO THE DY COLLECTOR AND THE POLICE STATION OF THE OFFENCE AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR BEFORE THE JMFC. AFTER GATHERING THE EVIDENCE OF HANDWRITING ANALYSIS CHARGE SHEET IS FILED BEFORE THE JMFC. LATELY DURING INQUIRY IT WAS INFORMED THAT THIS CASE WAS FOR ARGUMENT BEFORE TRIAL. THE IMPERSONATER CLAIMES THAT HE WAS FALSLEY ACCUSED BY THE COMPLAINANTS. THE IMPERSONATER CLAIMS HE HAS BY MISTAKE AND WITHOUT KNOWING SIGNED THE NAME OF THE PERSON APPEARING IN FORM I&XIV AS IT IS AN ALIAS NAME OF HIS LATE FATHER. THE FATHER'S NAME IN BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE IMPERSONATOR DIFFERS FORM THE NAME APPEARING IN THE SAID FORM. MOREOVER THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROCEQUTOR IS THE WIFE OF THE LAWYER REPRESENTING THE IMPERSONATOR IN A CIVIL CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS LATLY ENCROACHED AND FRAUDULENTLY PARTITIONED PREVIOUSLY. THOUGH THE IMPERSONATOR HAS ANOTHER LAWYER REPRESENTING THE CRIMINAL CASE, THERE IS EVERY LIKELYHOOD OF A COMPROMISE AND FAILURE ON PART OF THE APP TO PENALISE THIS CULPRIT. I AM THE COMPLAINANT IS THERE ANY THING I CAN DO TO PREVENT THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Commercial Use in Co-Op Housing Society
I have purchased a ground floor flat in a residential housing society which has 6 buildings (wings). My ground floor flat has separate access and does not have access from the complex compound. When i purchased the flat the builder had said he would convert the same to commercial after i buy. However, my agreement states residential use with private access and no change of user has happened. The builder has taken irrevocable declaration from the members of my wing / building that they will not object to change of user from residential use to commercial use at any time in the future. Now CHS has been registered before i bought the place for all 6 buildings. I have started a play school / day care from the flat and now the society is objecting to this. MY QUESTION:
1. Is play school activity / day care activity permissible from a residential premises without the NOC from society?
2. Is there any supreme court judgement that a premises with a private access and private compound is allowed to carry out day care / play school activity?
3. Is there any other protection that i have under such a scenario?