priyanka singh
09 December 2009 at 11:19
Dear All
my queries is if i am changing my directors in AGM/ EGM of the company , and i am maintaning the minium no of Directors but Directors due to their malafide intentions are not ready to give their digital signatures and shareholders have changed both directors in the General Meeting further two new directors are appointed in their place. We have to file form 32 for appointment of new directors and resignation of old one , now we dont have signature of any of the old directors (as they are not ready to give the signatures) , i request the goodself to assist me in order to file form 32 of removal as well as appointment of directors.
Mohamed Ali
09 December 2009 at 10:32
Dear All,
We had filed an Interlocutary Application under section 151 of CPC to delete Legal heirs who are misjoinders as per Mohameddan law, in the pending Final decree proceedings in Priciple Civil judge Sr division and CJM court, We had mentioned in our prayer that they are not entitle for any share as per Mohameddan hence delete these LR's.
Our lawyer suppose to have filed this IA in Order 1 rule 10(2) but somehow he filed in 151 of CPC, Now our IA has been dismissed stating misjoinders cannot be deleted in pending Final decree proceedings.
Question: Our Advocate says we have to file a writ petition in High court but when I Spoke to some advocates they are telling any Order passed on section 151 of CPC even though on IA in trial court is appeal able in District court, So need to file a Writ in High court directly ?
G. ARAVINTHAN
09 December 2009 at 07:43
Suit for recovery of money filed with court fee of Rs30/-
Deficit of Rs.16,400/-
deficit made clear after 3 years of
limitation
Sec 149 CPC application filed after two months of payment of deficit fee
Judge allowed the application without reasons.
what is the remedy for respondents now?
Kumar Krishan Agarwal Advocate
09 December 2009 at 01:03
Dear Ld Friend,
Why we use the challan word although there is no word definition in Cr.P.C?
In English what we say the right word excluding challan ?
Anonymous
09 December 2009 at 00:31
Respected sir,
‘Mahafiskhana’ which is in charge of keeping land records of survey settlement (took place between 1914 to 1927) of my area. I am in need of certified copy of Survey settlement (Khatiyan) document of my land. When I approached ‘Mahafiskhana’ where it gets issued, they r telling that all the record of your area has been badly mutilated and has been reduced to pieces, so it cannot be obtained. Rare records have been reduced to pieces. There is no other place from where we can get it. Employees are drawing huge salaries, and are not capable of keeping records. From where should I get it? Who is responsible? Where shall I complain? Is complaining to Hon’ble High Court will be fruitful? Thanks to all.
ABHINAV JAIN
08 December 2009 at 23:23
Whether a Civil Court Can be impleaded as party respondent in a writ petition filed against its order?
1.S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786 held in affirmative.
2.S.C. in A.I.R. 1999 SC 976 held(rather observed in para 14) in negative
3.Raj. H.C.(SB) in one decision - 2009 WLC 57 upheld the decision of S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786
4.Raj. H.C.(SB) in another decision - unreported(but passed a day before the above judgement in 3) rejected S.C. judgement in A.I.R 1963 SC 786 but upheld S.C. Judgement in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (Para 14).
In my view decision of the S.C. in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (para 14) is not the ratio decidendi but merely an obiter dictum, therefore no court inferior to the S.C. is bound by its obiter dictum in any case?
Kindly Suggest?
ABHINAV JAIN
08 December 2009 at 23:21
Whether a Civil Court Can be impleaded as party respondent in a writ petition filed against its order?
1.S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786 held in affirmative.
2.S.C. in A.I.R. 1999 SC 976 held(rather observed in para 14) in negative
3.Raj. H.C.(SB) in one decision - 2009 WLC 57 upheld the decision of S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786
4.Raj. H.C.(SB) in another decision - unreported(but passed a day before the above judgement in 3) rejected S.C. judgement in A.I.R 1963 SC 786 but upheld S.C. Judgement in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (Para 14).
In my view decision of the S.C. in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (para 14) is not the ratio decidendi but merely an obiter dictum, therefore no court inferior to the S.C. is bound by its obiter dictum in any case?
Kindly Suggest?
Anonymous
08 December 2009 at 22:57
can you help me regading the case law on the following point as it is very urget,,,
ON PANCHANAMA THERE IS NO POINT OF IMPACT IS SHOWN AND NOT ALSO THE SCRATCH MARKS ON THE ROAD..WHEN BOTH THE THINGS ARE NOT SHOWN ONE CANNOT MAKE OUT WHO'S MISTAKE IT IS....
on the above mentioed point i wanted case laws can you help me...plz mail me at advsagarparab@gmail.com
Sumir
08 December 2009 at 22:53
I am taking from maharashtra, despite of giving clear evidences of corruption against a very big authority they are merely, forwarding the complaint to the same department against which I complaint with the request for departmental Inquiry, and the department gives any nonsense explanation, tell me what to do?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
undertaking of Loan by Bank
Dear Sir,
I took a Housing Loan against my property. which is separate from other loans running in the same bank. after some time transferred my loan to another Bank and the same was under taken by it. that previous bank is now nethir release the papers of property to me nor send the same to the bank which undertaken my said loan. what is the remedy for me.