Anonymous
23 July 2018 at 21:20
अंतर्गत धारा 143 एवं 164 जेड0ए0 एल0आर0एक्टः-
रेहननामें के आधार पर भूमि के मालिक द्वारा क्रमशः 3 नम्बरो पर कब्जा व मालिकाना हक 1966 में हमारे पिता जी को दे दिया गया था, रेहननामें में दो लोगों को गवाह भी बनाया गया था। 1989 में भूमि के पूर्व मालिक की मृत्यु के पश्चात उनके पुत्रों द्वारा 1993 में मालिकाना हक के लिए मुकदमा दायर कर दिया गया, जिसमें 1993 में सुलहनामे के आधार पर पुनः भूमि पर स्वामित्व हमारा माना गया। सुलह नामें में हमें एक नम्बर पर अपना स्वत्व रखते हुए दो नम्बरों पर अपना अधिकार छोडने की शर्त रखी गयी। जिसे हमारे पिता द्वारा मान लिया गया। तत्पश्चात प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा पुनः 1994 में मुकदमा दायर किया गया और 1995 में पुनः सुलहनामें में भूमि पर हमारा स्वत्व स्वीकार किया। 1995 में पुनः पूर्व भूमालिक के पुत्रों में से एक के पुत्र अर्थात पौत्र ने एक अपंजीकृत वसीयत के आधार पर अपील किया कि उसके दादा ने उसे उक्त विवादित नम्बर को उसे वसीयत किया है। जिस पर पुनः 1998 में अदालत द्वारा आदेश पारित करते हुए पुनः हमारा स्वामित्व स्वीकार किया और प्रतिपक्षी की अपील खारिज करते हुए हमारी प्रापर्टी पर प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा किसी प्रकार का हस्तक्षेप न करने का आदेश पारित किया । कोर्ट द्वारा हमारे पक्ष में इंजक्शन स्यूट //स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा// और इजरा का आदेश भी किया जा चुका है।
प्रतिवादी द्वारा पुनः तजबीजशानी प्रार्थना पत्र 2008 में विलम्ब से दाखिल करते हुए सबूतों एवं रूलिंग की समस्त प्रतियों को हमारी पत्रावली से गायब करवा दिया गया और बिना हमारा पक्ष सुने कोर्ट द्वारा 1998 के आदेश को निरस्त करते हुए तजबीजशानी प्रार्थना पत्र को स्वीकार कर लिया गया। तत्पश्चात हमारे द्वारा राजस्व परिषद इलाहाबाद में अपील किया गया जिसमें अदालत द्वारा प्रतिपक्षी की तजबीजशानी अपील को कालवाधित मानते हुए और गुण दोषों के आधार पर हमारे पक्ष में निर्णय देते हुए 1998 का आदेश जो हमारे पक्ष में था पुनः कायम कर दिया गया ।
प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा पुनः हाईकोर्ट में अपील कर उक्त आदेश पर स्टेटस को ले लिया गया है।
अब हमारे द्वारा इसमें क्या कार्यवाही किया जाना चाहिए? मार्गदर्शन करें ।
meghana
23 July 2018 at 21:12
i am a working woman, i and my husband co-own a flat. i am not paying the EMI for the house only my husband is paying the EMI. i am not contributing financially in any way.
and now if the house is sold, will i get half of the proceeds or i will get back only my investment in the house ?
rakesh mittal
23 July 2018 at 20:46
Sir,
the apyment cheque will be refunds after case 138 is sure. beacuse paid the stamp duty for file case and adovate with refunds or only cheque amount
SHYAMSUNDER BUBNA
23 July 2018 at 20:45
Whether Nominee of any party must be individuals and not the Corporate Body. Nominee a person in whose name title to real estate or ownership of stock is held but who is not the actual proprietor or holder.
Viswanathan KS
23 July 2018 at 19:52
Who all are first executive magistrate b in India authorised to sign affidavit for govt department?
Anonymous
23 July 2018 at 19:39
I was doing business fronm a firm in delhi.
AS I wanted to pay the amount after receiving the material , i was asked to pay rs 30000
undated cheque in the name of propritor . so he can send the material and receive the full payment in the firm name after receipt of the material. the business continue for 2 years.
in one of last assignment he send the water instead of material which my retail customer returned to me.mean time I have made payment of all invoices raised by the firm in the firm a/c by NIFT. when I told him about defetive material returnd by my retail coustomer
he denied to make any compensation towards the same.
NOw I decided not to do any business in future with him and asked to return the undated cheque of rs 30000 with him. But instead of returning he told me that cheque is misplaced and not tracable. on this I asked my bank to stop the payment for that
cheque no on 15/06/2018(bank acceptance letter of this instruction is with me). But he
putting the date on cheque of 18/06/2018 presented the cheque in his bank which obviosly got dishonered due to my instruction of stop payment on 15.06.2018
Now I have received A legal notice FROm his lawyer with out showing any liablity and just mentioning the cheque dishonered and presumption that there should be liability.
As this is cheating and blackmailing and misuse of negotiable instrument act,breach of trust what remedy I have to reply for this notice as there is no legal liability and debt outstanding against me and he was just holding a undated cheque given for encahment if there is some delay on payment
Anonymous
23 July 2018 at 19:11
My salary is 30000 per month i get salary in my account and it comes half half so how to show my salary proof of financial year give some idea
Anonymous
23 July 2018 at 18:28
Hi, I work in a MNC which works 5 days in a week.
I would like to know whether am eligible for applying gratuity.
DOJ - 19/12/13. LWD - 2/8/18.
Please help me out on this.
Chandraprakash B. Morjal
23 July 2018 at 16:10
I have purchased a flat in Khativali Village of Shahapur Taluka in Thane District and got possession in 2013. The agreement for sale states about payment of maintenance charges @ 1686/- per month for three years from the date of possession of the flat. The builder has not allowed to form the Co-operative Housing Society unless the construction work of adjacent building is completed. The structure of the said adjacent building is left unattended for more than 3 years. Even after completion of 3 years in 2016, as required in agreement of sale, the builder has forced me to pay monthly maintenance charges at unjustified rate of Rs. 1686 (increased to Rs. 2248/- per month from 01-04-2018).
As per my knowledge, the maintenance charge is a sum total of Annual Repairs at minimum 0.75% of construction cost of a new building/flat, and, in addition, reimbursement of other expenses incurred by the builder on behalf of the flat owners. Accordingly, I have asked the builder to justify maintenance charges @ Rs. 1686 / 2248 per month for which he has chosen to be silent.
The flat owners are being forced to make payment of GST even on the reimbursement of other expenses like Panchayat Tax, NA Tax, Electricity consumption for common premises, etc, incurred by the builder on behalf of the flat owners. Moreover, The Co-operative Housing Society would have been formed within a reasonable period as per existing rules, regulations and practices if it had not been denied by the builder. In case of the existence of CHS, the payment of GST on Maintenance Charges would have been on different footings.
In view of the above, I am in need of your expert advice in light of the existing rules, regulations and practices in the matter relating to maintenance charges and GST thereon in such forced circumstances. - Chandraprakash B. Morjal (Mobile No 9987093041).
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Liability of ex-ceo of the bank for loss incurred by bank
CAN BOARD OF NOMINEE HOLD LIABLE A CHIEF OFFICER, FOR TRANSACTIONS DONE BY BANK PRIOR TO HIS JOINING BANK.
My friend Ex CEO of Bank C had joined the bank on 1.7.06 and resigned on 16.6.08
There was an arrangement between Bank A in Bhuj and Bank C in Rapar (both in kutch district of Gujarat) that cheques of Bank A , when presented by the account holders of Bank A, to Bank C, it should be honoured for payment after observing a formality of sending Fax to Bank A for confirming by Bank A that they have verified all the aspect of the cheque,including sufficiency of balance and genuineness of drawer’s signature. After verifying as above, Bank A will re-fax confirmation and then Bank C was will make payment. Bank C had opened an account in the name of Bank A, which was being debited by that amount, and at the end of the day, a statement also was being sent by Bank C to Bank A for reconciliation and affording credit to Bank C for all the entries.
During audit by auditors observed that following two entries, payment for which was made by Bank C but credit was not afforded by Bank A.
a) Entry dated 15.5.2006 for Rs.3,15,000/-
b) Entry dated 17.6.2006 for Rs.1,40,000/-
c) Entry dated 13.9.2006 for Rs 90,000/-
In this connection, Board of nominees,Rajkot, initiated actions and sent investigating officer and to submit report in the matter.
Thereafter, neither Bank C or Board of Nominee, sent any notice or communication and passed an order under Sec.93 of Guj.State.co-op.soc.Act.,1961, holding liable three persons viz.,,CEO, Chairman and Cashier/officer for loss incurred to Bank C., and instructed them to make payment of aggregate amount of Rs.5,45,000/-plus Rs.12,000/- being fees and cost towards investigation process.within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
The communication of the above order was sent to Cashier/officer by Bank C, three days back per their letter dated 18.5.2018 (letter perported to be back dated by Bank C)
My friend Ex-CEO has not received any communication till date.
In this connection, entries in a) and b) are of the period when my friend Ex-CEO, had not joined bank.
As regards third entry c) , my friend Ex-CEO had observed all the formalities as per the arrangement framed by both the banks.
Thereafter, also, since the payment of Rs.90,000/- was not forthcoming from Bank A, Bank C, filed suit against Bank A (suit No.46/209 dtd 31.8.2009).
Under the circumstances, whether my friend Ex-CEO should approach Bank C, or directly approach Tribunal for quashing and setting aside or amending the judgement of Board of Nominees.