Anonymous
09 March 2011 at 12:14
what are licences to be obtained to open warehouse?
SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA
09 March 2011 at 11:58
Dear Sir
Kindly answer in an registred partnership, partners dissolve the partnership deed through notary only with understanding that One Partner (Mr. A)will pay 50 lakh to other Partner Mr. B in two months. Thereafter Mr. A declines to give the payment to Mr. B. No other information or paper has submitted by Mr. B to any one. Now My questions are:
1.Whether Registration of Dissolution deed is mandatory?
2.Whether it would be readable as evidence in court, if Mr. B FILES A SUIT FOR RECOVERY?
3. What are the remedies available to Mr. B?
4. Mr. B does not have more money to pay court fee?
Anonymous
09 March 2011 at 11:31
Can anyone provide draft object clause to be inserted in main objects of the company in respect of carrying out aerial work.
Pramod
09 March 2011 at 10:19
Sir,
I am working in Govt organisation from 5 years(Feb-2006) as JRF ( JRF is not the post on Estblishment)on Contract basis.The Contract basisOrder is for 12 month,6 month, 3 month after one day gap. Our selection on the basis of interview. In 2009 our Dept. has filled the regular post in which 30 JRF selected as field officer.The Qualification for the post field officer is any B.E. or M. Sc. Environment or its equivalant.
My Qualification is - Regular M.Sc. (Computer Sci.) in the year 2001 Which is acadamicaly equivalent to B.E. ( Comp.) certificate from the university is obtained.
I have not received call letter from dept for interview & not selected for the post field officer.
As i am working with organisation & Academically equivalent qualification i am not selected & remain as JRF on contract basis.
what will i do for to be regularised ? please give me advise.
rajesh makol
08 March 2011 at 23:31
PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CASE FOR ANSWERING:
A. COURT FEE IS TO BE PAID ON WHICH PROPERTY VALUE - ONLY EXTENDED PORTION OR BOTH THE ACTUAL AND EXTENDED PORTION?
B. CAN A RELIEF FOR REMOVAL OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WHICH WAS BASED ON FRADULENT PROPERTY PAPERS BE PRAYED BEFORE THE COURT?
C. WHAT IS THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME OF THE CASE?
D. SHALL THE PLANTIFF COMPROMISE WITH THE DEFENDENT IF THE COURT ASKS FOR MEDIATION?
E. IS THERE A NEED TO FILE SEPARATE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT?
F. WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE?
** THE CASE IS TO BE FILED IN A DAY OR TWO.ITS URGENT.
That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff purchased the flat bearing No. B – IV/123C, DDA Janta Flat, xyz Road, and when it was informed by the seller that the possession of the extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff cannot be give as the tenant occupying the same has obtained a stay order from the court of law and when it was assured that the needful is being done in the matter and soon the tenant will vacate the said extended portion and thereafter the same shall be handed over the to the plaintiff and when no information with regard to the alleged litigation was divulged to the plaintiff as mentioned here in above, it also arose when in March 2009 the plaintiff came to know that the said tenant has sold the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff as mentioned herein above to one Shri Avtar Singh, claiming it to be his own property and narrating its address as to be bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, it also arose when coming to know about the said sale transaction the plaintiff rigorously inquired about the same when it was revealed that the said tenant claimed to be owner of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, having purchased the same from one Shri Charanjit Singh, who intern claimed to have purchased the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff from the original allotee and showed the photocopies of some papers in this regard, and when the plaintiff and her husband confronted the said Shri Sushil Arora with the complete chain through which the plaintiff had purchased her flat and when it was represented that the said documents in possession of the plaintiff are not genuine and the complete chain is with him and when the said Shri Sushil Arora did not handover any document in this regard, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff became suspicious about the deal and started making enquires and when one Shri Avtar Singh took over the possession of the suit property claiming himself to be a tenant under one Shri Mathur, it also arose when no further identity of the said Shri Mathur was disclosed and when the said Shri Avtar Singh vacated the suit property/extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff in June 2010 and when the plaintiff and her husband got the electricity connection feeding electricity of the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, disconnected, it also arose when the defendant claiming to be owner of the extended portion/suit property bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, Lawrence Road, Delhi – 110035, on 29.06.2010 produced an agreement to sell in respect of the same before the electricity department for getting the electricity connection restored to the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff for the purpose to ascertain the legality of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff filed RTI applications with the DDA, MCD, Sub-registrar, Rohini and when she received replies form the said departments as aforesaid, it also arose when the plaintiff filed a police complaint of the fraud been played by the defendant. As the defendant is claiming her title on the basis of forged, fabricated and baseless documents which do not has nay legal value in the eyes of law and has further failed to stop claiming her ownership in the said extended portion/suit property up and above on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, the said cause of action still subsists.
22. That for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as under: -
(i) for the of relief of declaration for declaring the alleged agreement to sell dated _________ as null and void the suit is valued for Rs._________/- on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______/- is being paid
(ii) for the relief of possession the suit is valued at Rs. _________ on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______ is being paid
Tushar Chowdhary
08 March 2011 at 19:25
Domestic construction worker is not covered under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Please kindly support the replies with the latest judgements of various High Courts and Apex court.
Your support will be highly appreciable.
Thanks in Advance.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
I wnat to undersatnd about LCI
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BEWTWENN LCI AND LIC