NAVNEET GUPTA
11 October 2010 at 18:45
Sir, a lady on whose complainant the police filed a chargesheet U/s 451/353 RPC(J&K) and on the presurre of accused and prosecution agency ,as she was threatened of dire consequences ,made different story before the Court which will in future exonerate the accused . The evidence in the case is still going on .The accused has now threatened her to get her defamed and file a case for malicious prosecution . The lady/complainant now intends to retract from her statement and wants to make a correct statement before the court.
Please advice on this issue and also the law point / procedure .
Jolly James 9447287658
11 October 2010 at 17:24
I got a notice under section 17 A of the Act stating that I failed to submit return for last 6 months. under section 5 of the KLT Act every proprietor is liable to file return as claimed by Assessing Authority.
As per section 5 of the KLT Act "Every proprietor liable to pay Luxury Tax under this Act shall submit such return in such manner and with in the period as may be prescribed "
My stand is that I am not Liable to pay Tax as per section 5 of the Act hence the Assessing Authority cannot compel me to file return because I am collecting Rent Rs 75/- per room. Give your valuable advice am I right? what is the Remedy?
Anonymous
11 October 2010 at 11:43
What is sect award under section 17? whether application to appoint custodian for vehicle is first step? or passing an award u/s 17 in a court is first step?
Vinod Phulchand Pawar
09 October 2010 at 19:35
Dear Forum:
1.Once the issue like the legality of Lock-out and Strike had already been decided in the Complaint filed under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Can the same issue raise again in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
2. Can there is any bar under section 59 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Pramod Kumar
09 October 2010 at 16:55
Dear Sir,
I solicit your views on following aspects:
1. Shares held by a corporate body in the name of its employee- whether such employee is NOMINEE SHAREHOLDER of that body corporate or not?
2. The declaration U/s 187 C of the Companies Act 1956 is not filed by the Body corporate nor intimated to the company- whether such declaration filing is mandatory in law or not?
3. The Corporate body intends to transfer shares held by an employee in the name of other employee- What procedure shall be required under law for transfer of such shares from one employee to other employee?
4. Whether for such transfer Share Transfer form is required? if so, who shall sign such Share Transfer form- whether Body Corporate or such employee in whose name shares are presently held.
5. Whether for Share Transfer stamp duty shall be attracted or not?
Your august opinion in the matter is solicited. Kindly guide.
Thanks and regards,
PRAMOD KUMAR
Anonymous
04 October 2010 at 18:58
hello 2 all...
I want to know that what is last date of filling audit report for gujarat and is it filling through E filling is nessesary..
Sanjivani
04 October 2010 at 15:48
my client has taken one gala for his office in v mall at kandivali. the builder who build that mall he holding 40% shares. remaining area sold. and in the management committee the builder is a chairperson. till they has no share certificate. so management has a capacity to issue share certificate or not. 2) management has a full authority to take any decision or not.
3) if there is any dues, how much charging in condominium.
Anonymous
04 October 2010 at 12:41
A Farming Land was converted in Non agriculture and permitted for construction. I filed a case against that order done by DDO Anand that there was elegal steps were taken to pass that order. The case was filed in April 2010 but not any date come out even after 5 months time. I also heard that they take long long time to run the case. I am NRI and how long can I wait. Plus when I will be back home it may come to run thwe cAse so this is very critical issue for me. Pl. help me. what to do and how.
Saptarshi Paul
03 October 2010 at 11:56
Mr x had installed one 5 Kva Generator Set in a Nationalised bank on monthly rent basis. :- 1/1/2006
@Rs. 3500/- Pm, on request the bank had enhanced MONTHLY RENT ON :- 4/7/2007 FROM :- Rs 3500/- to Rs 4500
There after an AGREEMENT MADE FOR 5 Yrs Term starting from 1/6/2007
Certainly the bank called for another quation to install 10kva genset , Mr X thought it as additional genset or standby genset and accordingly participated in the tender but the bank has disqualified his tender as the rate is higher.
Therafter bank as informed Mr X to TERMINATE SERVICE ON 28/6/2010
Therafter Mr x send LEGAL NOTICE SEND ON 30/6/2010 throgh his advocate as the agreemnent was for 5 years term then how can they terminate the service.
There after Bank Notice to Terminate Service on:- 9/7/2010 and Order to close services of gen set on 31/7/2010
Mr X filed title suit and also SUIT FILE ON 30/7/2010 UNDER ORDER 39 Rule 1 & 2
Temporary injuection was granted by Musnsiff-2
But later on the bank contested as in the agreement in last para it is mentioned as – “ bank has right to terminate service of generator at any time without giving any reason”
Court has given order in favour of Bank on the basis of following points :-
1. It’s a nationalized bank and if proper power is not supplied then transaction and customer of the bank will suffer.
2. Mr x had participated in the tender and as he lost the tender that is why he filed suit otherwise he should have objected before participating in tender
We had already argued on behalf of Mr x as follows :-
1. Government Companies or Public Corporations which carry on trade and business activity of State being State instrumentalities, are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such they are subject to the observance of fundamental rights embodied in Part III as well as to conform to the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In other words, the Agreement terms & conditions framed by them are to be tested by the touchstone of Article-14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the procedure prescribed by their Rules or Regulations must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, fanciful and unjust.
2. The 'audi alteram partem' rule which, in essence, enforces the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution is applicable not only to quasi-judicial orders but to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party-in-question Rules of natural justice do no supplant but supplement the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the Rule of Law, which is founded in the Constitution of India, demands that it has to be observed both substantially and procedurally. Rule of law says that the power to be exercised in a manner which is just, fair and reasonable and not in an unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary manner leaving room for discrimination
3. Terms condition mentioned in the Agreement in Para-17 :- “…Bank reserved the right to terminate the agreement at any time without assigning any reason thereof…”
does not expressly exclude the application of the 'audi alteram parterm' rule and as such the order of termination of service of a which already agreed in Para – 1 of the agreement for 5years from 01.06.2007 and ending on 31/12/2011 cannot be passed by simply issuing a notice just before the 21days (9th july 2010) prior to the close of business on 31st July 2010 and without giving any hearing to the employee to controvert the allegation on the basis of which the purported order is made.
4. the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment relating to service condition, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly) spoke of unconscionable contract. That was a case relating to the particular clause in the service rule entitling the employer to terminate the services even of the permanent employees without giving any reason and by giving notice. It was held that such a clause is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act being opposed to the public policy. It was further held to be ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution of India. Such a clause in the rules was described by the Apex Court as a naked "hire and fire" rule and its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII clause so familiar to administrative lawyers.
But the learned court disagree our argument and gave judgement in favour of Bank
Now we like to make Appeal to the District Judge
Kindly Help me out by providing valuable suggestion in this regard
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
NPA according to RBI guidelines.
I am placing relevance to RBI guidelines on 'Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification & Provisioning Pertaining to Advances'
extract:
4.2.4 Upgradation of loan accounts classified as NPAs
If arreas of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of accounts classified as NPAs, the accounts should no longer be treated as non-perfofming and may be classified as 'standard' accounts.....
My account was declared NPA and I made subsequent payments to sevice the interest in full and brought the outstanding within the sanctioned limits. Should my account be classified as sub-standard and no longer be treated as non-performing? Or would it be right for the Bank to keep it as NPA?