Anonymous
12 April 2011 at 16:28
NI Act, 1881
Section 125 Crossing After Issue :
Where a cheque is uncrossed, the holder may cross it generally or specially.
Where a cheque is crossed generally, the holder may cross it specially.
Where a cheque is crossed generally or specially, the holder may add the words "not negotiable".
Where a cheque is crossed specially, the banker to whom it is crossed may again cross it specially to another banker, his agent, for collection.
Question :
1) Where a cheque is crossed generally, the holder may cross it specially. (so vive - versa is not applicable (means if the cheque crossed is crossed specially, the holder cannot cross generally)) right ?
2) Where a cheque is crossed generally or specially, the holder may add the words "not negotiable".
It means that when the word "not negotiable" is written on the cheque than the cheque cannot be further endorsed to anybody else right ? Eg: a/c payee "not negotiable" to jyoti than jyoti cannot endorsed to anybody else & if the cheque is lost than bank cannot deposited the cheque which contains the word "not negotiable" to the other a/c if the cheque is lost ?
3) Where a cheque is crossed specially, the banker to whom it is crossed may again cross it specially to another banker, his agent, for collection.
but if the word "not negotiable" is written than banker can also can't endorsed to any another person or banker. right ?
Thanks.
Anonymous
11 April 2011 at 23:50
Tobacco Gutkha plastic packing to ban matter is pending for judgment in SC -is it true? If yes, then what is the final date of judgment? Not only gutkha plastic packing but gutkha itself product should be totally banned all over India for the sake of good health of teenagers & general public.Everybody knows but why it is not banned? Do not understand. NGO and social service organization should take up this matter seriously legally for this good and holy cause to save next generations from serious health problems like cancer and health disorder due to gutkha. Inspite strong opposition & resistance from rich gutkha lobby , I believe and have faith that some organization will take up matter to banned gutkha.
Adv.Gayatri Kulkarni
11 April 2011 at 22:45
Please can anybody tell the rate of Soft or hard Murum used for Filing or land development under MVAT 2002?
Mohinder Singh
11 April 2011 at 14:04
i worked as an employee with LIC and retired ecently.my employers punished me in 1998 in the wake of an old and redundent circular issued in 1958. we are governed by the LIC employees regulations of 1960. the rules of 1958 were framed under the regulations of 1956, that were repealed when the new regulations of 1960 came into being. i appealed, but the AA also did not gave any reprieve. i filed a meorial but the same was rejected by the chairman in 2001. i filed a suit before the court of law in 2004, but the lower court also did not decided in my favouer and the case is now at the appeal stage before a ADJ. in the meantime the RTI came.
the CPIO in an information stated that the circular of 1958 was valid even in 1998. the AA also stated the same thing. the 2ndAA the CIC also ruled in the same manner as stated by the CPIO and AA. in a seperate RTI application the highest office of LIC informed that the rules were framed in 1958 to tackle a then prevailing matter and it was not in force thereafter. now i have filed a complaint before the CIC under section 18E of RTI act and the decision is still pending. is there any other remedy avaialable to me to bring the culprits in the book and the punsihment awarded after a charge sheet in 1998 be curtailed? please advise.
regards
Mohinder singh kamboj
mskamboj@thekimt.com
09354920313
11/4/2011
Mangesh
11 April 2011 at 13:42
What is the meaning and difference of Interim and Final Directions of SEBI.
Anonymous
11 April 2011 at 12:10
I'm leaving in a 4 by 1 apartment. We are having common area access and sharing issue. Ground floor person has made some deal with the builder and has physically constructed some structure in the backyard and is using for all his house needs. We were told that we will have a garden in the that place as per the plan. Ground floor owner has blocked the common area back yard and when we (3 house owners) as him he is threatening us and builder is also not taking any action. we are planning to take legal action. can somebody advice on the right steps. cicil case or property dispute? Thanks
Anonymous
11 April 2011 at 10:34
Respected sir,
I have passed the written test held by one of public sector undertaking in india and called for interview but my selection was not done even the post is identified & reserved for the hearing imparement due to the reason that selection committee was not found me fit.
I want to ask you that is there any procedure to decide someone fit or unfit during interview. Or selection committee has the right to decide the fitness of the candidate merely on the performance in the interview only.
AJIT KAWATKAR
10 April 2011 at 20:20
The matter is in maharashtra.
A ownership flat belonging to Sr.Citizen-Spinster,in her absence, is taken over by a family some 3 yrs back[no docoments, so trsspasser]the occupier applied for some govt,wefare scheme where in she submitted FORGED LL AGRMNT to the agency[nationalised bank]the copy of that eas sent to the owner by bank about a yr back.We requested the occupier through mediator, to hand over the possession without making known to her about the COPY of FORGED DOBUMENT,But without success.
Since much time has passed,kindly let me know whether we can file Forgery & Tress-passing complaints/suit ? what will be expected success ?
Anonymous
10 April 2011 at 12:43
I want to know that in a certain property related case filed in the Allahabad High Court,we had filed a recall application regarding an order passed against us on a day before the due date and without giving us an opportunity to be heard/or even a notice to file our submissions.As a consequence of it,when we filed the recall application for reviewal of the original order of The High Court even that was passed against us without looking into the evidences supplied by us in the form of 27 trial court judgments,all of which were in our favor.Instead,the order of the recall application asked the trial court to reconsider their decisions.Now,it is quite difficult and unfair against us to start all over again from the level of the trial court since the HC did not consider any of the evidences supplied by us before passing an order against us and simply typed the similar language in the order as was in the original order of the HC.The order of this recall application was passed on 27/8/10,can we now i.e.,in the month of April file an appeal against this order in the division bench of The High Court.Please Reply at the earliest.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
S.138 of Negotiable Ins.Act
Need ruling reported in 2004(2)MWN(Cr.)(DCC)pg.106 Madras-P.S.A.Thamotharan v/s Dalmia Cements(B)Ltd.It is regarding writing on the cHEQUE and Signature on the Cheque.
Kindly sent immediately as it is urgent