Anonymous
30 March 2018 at 17:26
First Writ petition had filed against Person X and accepted a direction to the chief secretary to address the grievance in my representation and dispose of. In action, I filed contempt but government informed before the court that Person X already removed from the post for administrative reasons and representation become infructuous and hence contempt closed.
But in reality no change, Person X continued in same post. So I filed Second petition and got dismissed with cost due to res judicata. Review application is filed because res judicata not applicable since no decision on merits either by Government or Court in earlier. Review only numbered but not listed for hearing till date because bench not sit yet.
Shall I file Third Writ petition to direct the chief secretary to dispose of my representation while review is pending since my representation is not considered till date ? Otherwise any other remedy available
Anonymous
30 March 2018 at 10:47
IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD
e.A.NO. OF 2015
IN
e.p.No. 58 of 1984
IN
o.s.No. 389 of 1969
BETWEEN:
B.Ashok Rao, S/o.B.Narsing Rao,
Aged 62 years, Occ; Business,
R/o.H.No.
Old Alwal, R.R.Dist.,
… Petitioner/DHr./Pltf.
A n d
Late U.Narsimha Reddy,
and others.
…Respondents/Jdrs./Defts.
COMMON AFFIDAVIT
I, B.Ashok Rao, S/o.late B.Narsing Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ; Business, R/o.
, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as under:
1. I am the petitioner/DHr./Pltf. herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts.
2. I submit that the deceased 1st defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale dt.17.09.1962 in my favour in respect of the land to the extent of Ac.82.29 guntas in Sy.No.131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad District, now in Ranga Reddy Dist., for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-.
3. I submit that on account of breach of terms committed by the deceased 1st defendant i.e., late U.Narsimha Reddy, I filed a suit in OS No.389/1969 on the file of this Hon’ble Court, against the deceased 1st defendant, seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dt.17.09.1962 in respect of the said property. However, on contest the said suit was dismissed by a Judgment and Decree dt.28.09.1971.
4. I submit that aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree passed in OS No.389/1969, I preferred an appeal vide CCCA No.190/1972 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and during the pendency of the said appeal, there was a compromise entered into between myself and the L.Rs. of deceased 1st defendant, who were subsequently brought on record as defendants in the suit and also in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal in CCCA No.190/1972 was decreed in terms of the compromise on 20.07.1976 in respect of Ac.20.39 guntas in Sy.No.130, 131, 129 on the eastern side, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in Ranga Reddy District, as against my claim for Ac.82.29 gts.,
5. I submit that I was constrained to file an execution petition in EP No.58/1984 before this Hon’ble Court seeking to execute the compromise decree dt.20.07.1976 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CCCA No.190/1972, since the respondents therein committed breach of the terms of compromise. The said E.P. No.58/1984 also ended in a compromise and accordingly the same was ordered/decreed on 21.02.1985 in terms of the compromise in respect of the land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts., in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131 of Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., It is pertinent that an extent of Ac.12.00 gts., as against the claim of Ac.20.39 gts., in the earlier compromise in CCCA No.190/1972.
6. I submit that in terms of the said compromise in E.P.No.58/1984, the respondents delivered the physical vacant possession of the said land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts. in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131 to me and that the respondents herein agreed to execute and register the Sale Deed in respect of the said land at my costs. It was specifically agreed in the said compromise that in case of failure or default in executing and registering the Sale Deed, as agreed by the respondents herein, I am at liberty to get the same executed through this Hon’ble Court.
7. I submit that by virtue of the said order/decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, I got the said land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts. in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., validated by following the procedure as contemplated by Section 5-A of Record of Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), by paying necessary registration charges and stamp duty and accordingly the then M.R.O., Medchal passed orders in File No.C/7/92 dt.30.06.1992 in respect of the agriculture lands bearing Sy.No.128 – Ac.3.00 gts.,; Sy.No.130 – Ac.6.03 gts.,; and Sy.No.131 – Ac.2.37 gts., totally admeasuring Ac.12.00 gts., situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad Dist., now in R.R.Dist., Consequently Title Deeds and Pattedar Pass Books have also been issued in my favour in respect of the said extent of Ac.12.00 gts., and pahanies also reflects my name as pattedar and possessor of the said land.
8. While the matter stood thus, the respondents herein with ulterior motive and notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms of compromise, filed an appeal vide Proceedings No.C/580/1993 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.Dist., East, under Section 5 (5) of the said Act, thereby challenging the proceedings dt.30.06.1992 issued by the then M.R.O., Medchal. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Respondents by an Order dt.25.09.1993, thereby confirming the Order passed by the M.R.O. Medchal.
9. However, the respondents challenged the said order dt.25.09.1993 in No.C/580/1993, before the Joint Collector, R.R.Dist., Hyderabad, by way of a Revision in File No.D5/8397/1994 and the same was dismissed by an Order dt.04.12.2000 by the Joint Collector, thus confirming the order of the R.D.O. and also M.R.O. Medchal.
10. Having not been satisfied with the said three orders, the respondents filed a Writ Petition in WP No.3300/2001, challenging the Order dt.04.12.2000 passed by the Joint Collector, thus confirming the orders of the R.D.O. and M.R.O. On contest by the respondents herein, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.10.2001 by the Hon’ble High Court, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, upholding the proceedings passed in my favour under Section 5-A of the said Act.
11. I submit that the respondents challenged the Order dt.15.10.2001, passed by the Hon’ble High Court, by a Writ Appeal in WA No.1812/2001 and on contest, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court allowed the said Writ Appeal, by an Order dt.07.02.2005, thereby setting aside the Order dt.15.10.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.3300/2001. By the said Order dt.07.02.2005, the Hon’ble High Court quashed all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under Section 5-A of the Act in my favour. Aggrieved by the said Order dt.07.02.2005 passed in WA No.1812/2001, I preferred a SLP No.10907/2005 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an Order dt.13.10.2015.
12. I submit that in the Order dt.07.02.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WA No.1812/2001, the main point for consideration was that a Compromise Decree can be treated as a Sale Deed for the purpose of Section 5-A of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court held in negative, holding that under Section 5-A, the Compromise Decree could not have been validated, in the absence of execution of Sale Deed, pursuant to the Compromise Decree passed in EP No.58/1984. Even the respondents took the same stand before the Hon’ble High Court, without disputing the compromise decree passed in EP No.58/1984.
13. I submit that the respondents contention all through was that the decree/order dt.21.02.1985, was not executed and consequently no registered Sale Deed was executed in my favour and as such no proceedings can be issued in my favour under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, the rights accrued to me, by virtue of the Decree/Order dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, remained intact, inasmuch as the proceedings of the Revenue Authorities have been quashed only on the point of law that under Section 5-A of the Act, no proceedings can be issued on the basis of Compromise Decree passed in Specific Performance.
14. In the circumstances, I am entitled for execution of a Regd.Sale Deed in respect of the schedule of property i.e., the land admeasuring Ac.12.00 guntas in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in Ranga Reddy District. In this context, it is reiterated here that in the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed in EP No.58/1984, it was specifically agreed that
“In case of failure or default in executing and register the Sale Deed as agreed by the Judgment Debtor, the Decree Holder is at liberty to execute the Sale Deed through Court”
15. Thus, in view of such categorical condition laid down in the Decree/Order dt.21.02.1985 in EP No.58/1984 passed by this Hon’ble Court, I am entitled for execution of Sale Deed in my favour in respect of the said property by this Hon’ble Court. The delay occurred in filing the present petitions, is neither willful, nor wanton, inasmuch as I have been pursuing the remedy before the Revenue Authorities, who passed favourable orders in my favour under Section 5-A of the Act. Even the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court, dismissed the Writ Petition in WP No.3300/2001 filed by the respondents on 15.10.2001, challenging the Order of the Joint Collector.
16. Thus, till such time there was absolutely no occasion whatsoever for me to approach this Hon’ble Court for execution of the Sale Deed, all the Orders were in my favour. It is only when the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court passed orders dt.07.02.2005 in WA No.1812/2001, it was crystalized that Section 5-A of the Act was not applicable. However, since all the Lower Fora including the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court passed orders in my favour, I had to prefer an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 13.10.2015.
17. It is pertinent to submit here that in terms of the Order/Decree passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, the respondents had delivered to me, the vacant physical possession of the land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts., in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., Even as on today I have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, without any interference from anybody. As already submitted the Title Deeds and Pattedar Pass Books have been issued in my favour and the pahanies also reflects my name as Pattedar and Possessor of the said land. Thus, if the Sale Deed is not registered in my favour in respect of the said land in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, I shall suffer from serious hardships and irreparable loss.
18. Therefore, it is just and proper for this Hon’ble Court to reopen the EP No.58/1984 and consequently execute and register a Sale Deed in my favour in respect of the said land (morefully defined and described in the petition) in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
a) Reopen the E.P.No.58/1984 for the purpose of passing appropriate orders in the petition for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner/DHr. in respect of schedule property in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984,
b) Execute and register Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner/Decree Holder in respect of the petition schedule property in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, R.R.Dist., and to pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.
Sworn and signed before me
on this the day of November, 2015
at Hyderabad. Deponent
Advocate//Hyderabad
IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD
e.A.NO. OF 2015
IN
e.p.No. 58 of 1984
IN
o.s.No. 389 of 1969
BETWEEN:
B.Ashok Rao, S/o.B.Narsing Rao,
Aged 62 years, Occ; Business,
R/o.H.No.
Old Alwal, R.R.Dist.,
… Petitioner/DHr./Pltf.
A n d
Late U.Narsimha Reddy,
and others.
…Respondents/Jdrs./Defts.
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER- RULE-
, R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
HYDERABAD
DT: COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Madhu Mittal
28 March 2018 at 15:39
An case named DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GIRNAR INVESTMENT LTD. ITAT, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH Sikander Khan, A.M. & Y.K. Kapur, J.M. ITA No. 4330/Del/1998 17th July, 2003 (2005) 92 TTJ (Del) 711 :(2004) 88 ITD 419 (Del) that belongs to Section 45, 48, 55(2)(iiia), Asst. Year 1995-96, in which it was stated in last para:
“This brings us to the last submission of the assessee that the amendment carried
out in s. 55 by incorporation of sub-s. (iiia) clarifies the grey area as by virtue of the amendments the cost of bonus shares has been mandated to be taken as nil. The submission of the assessee was that on account amendment which has been carried out to clear doubt, the benefit of same should be given to the assessee. When we examined this contention of the assessee, we found that the amendment is operative from 1st April, 1996. It has no retrospective effect.”
From this can it be easily deduced that if the A.y. had been 1997-98 or later years, the benefit must have been given to assesse and there will not be any tax on short term
capital gain on shares in the said Girnar Case?
Girnar case is attached http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Intepretation-of-case-of-deputy-commissioner-of-income-tax-v-174796.asp
Patanjali Dhar
28 March 2018 at 12:43
An Insurance Policy can be taken by a breadwinner of the family under MWP Act for the benefit of the family/wife and children. Whether a Pension Policy can also be taken under MWP Act for the benefit of wife and children. The proceeds under MWP Act can not be attached and as such pension policy under MWP Act can become a property for the wife and children in case of any unforeseen circumstances. I request the legal experts to throw some light on the issuance of Pension Policy under MWP Act from the point of legal position and any judgement from the Courts and IT Tribunals on the matter.
Pushpalatha H
26 March 2018 at 14:13
I would like to know the rules/law regarding giving our property for a road to the adjacent property.
Kumari Snigdha
26 March 2018 at 08:57
Sir, My son is 16 yes old. We live in apartment complex in Ahmedabad. My son plays in the open area with his friends in the evening. Every time he does so he is being prevented & scolded / intimidated by the office bearers of housing society. We would like to know as to how to prevent it & is it unlawful under IPC.Pease guide me because we as a family are deeply upset & feel helpless.
Om
23 March 2018 at 13:15
I have done some CST sales against the c form condition with the buyer. As per then law of the state I had paid purchase tax on the goods purchased. A that time the purchase tax was 4% and the CST was also 4% . But latter unfortunatley few of my buyers failed to provide me c form due to closer of their business and some started blackmailing me to provide me c form only if I make any additional discounts etc. Now my local sales tax office demanding the c form and even served notices for attachment of my bank account. I have paid our state's tax and sold against the buyer's cst waybill. It is also confirmed that my buyer has paid the tax in his state and reflected the transactions in their return. The department of Sales tax has sent me a notice to pay the tax amount on balance due of C form @ rate of 8% . And after the complaining the higher authority has reduced the tax to @ 4% on the balance amount of the C form transactions. Now my queries on two following points
I) where as I had already paid the tax while purchasing the goods to the originating state then how can the same state will collect the tax again on the goods. That’s mean the double taxation on the same goods. Once I had paid @ 4% tax while purchasing and again pay tax @4% towards CST
. ii) Secondly, in some cases the department collects the sales tax when the dealer failed to provide the C form. The usual practice is that the department calculates the amount of tax as per the state’s tax rate and adjust the amount already paid towards the CST. The dealer has to pay the deference amount. In most of the cases the CST rate of tax is much lower than the state’s rate of tax. But in my case both the State’s rate of tax and the CST rate of tax i.e. 4% are same. Then how much the tax I should pay towards the CST now.
I had raised the issue with some advocates but unfortunately got difference of opinion. I heard about this Lawyers Club India Forum. I will be highly obliged to get the proper guidance in regards to the afro said matter from the best mind of the trade.
Thanking you and with Warm Regards
Anonymous
23 March 2018 at 01:13
I have bought a property in Navi Mumbai one year back. The property is constructed on a CIDCO Lease plot. The seller has been paid full (100%) amount of the sale agreement. The sale agreement is registered with the registrar along with full payment of the stamp duty and registration charges. The seller has given a signed letter of hand-over of the vacant possession of the property to me as well. The lease of the plot needs to be transferred in my name in CIDCO records. For this transfer, CIDCO requires a Sale Deed (Deed of Acquisition) to be signed between seller and buyer and registered with Registrar of properties. The seller is not presenting himself to sign-off the sale deed and its registration and demanding extra money to execute the sale deed. Unless the sale deed is registered, the property is not legally transferred in my name. To pressurize me into paying him additional money, the seller has cut-off the cidco water supply to my property by submitting an application to CIDCO, under the excuse that the property is still in his name in CIDCO records.
What is the suggested course of action for me as I do not wish to be extorted by the seller for registration of the sale deed?
PARMOD SEHGAL
22 March 2018 at 13:17
I am looking for a specimen of Agreement between a Real Estate Developer and RWA for taking over of the maintainable services by the later from the former. Can some body help me with that.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Mutual agreement on rental closure
Hi,
I had rented a place for few years and I would need to vacate it now. I have been paying the rent to the owner in cash but he hasn't provided any receipts for the past few months. Due to this, I would prefer to get a closure agreement so that there would be no issues created by him later. It would be helpful if someone could provide me a format for this closure agreement.