vijayakumar
02 November 2008 at 20:40
Person A is a legitimate owner of land - documented in 1986. From a Bhad a power of document in 1988 & sold to c.
Another power document from A is made in 1992 to D by the same person who has sold to E.. Person A, B, D cannot be traced.
Hence for the same piesce of land 2 documents are existing. I have purchsed from E. in the year 2000in the year 2000
What should I do & what is the remedy/
Kindly help.
Khaleel Ahmed
02 November 2008 at 17:42
Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title against Defendant Municipality.Suit for declaration of title filed against the defendant is merely because the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff in written statement. The Defendent have no documentary evidence or orally evidence in their support. The plaintiff have filed 44 exhibits in support of there claim. But unfortunately suit was dissmissed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed appeal against the decree and judgement. During the pendency of appeal the respondent Municipality issued building construction permissions to the appellant and alloted house no and issued owner ship certificate. Could the appeallant file a leave petition asking the court that the suit has been adjusted totally and the satisfaction may be recorded and appeal may be closed ? Can the court could pass orders prayed.
Khaleel Ahmed
KODAKKAL SHIVAPRASAD
02 November 2008 at 15:10
Am hearing impaired attended & wrote promotion written test for the post of manager at a nationalized bank, but bank has not listed my name in the successful candidates list,then I approached the Chairman of the bank to consider my promotion to the manager cadre under disabled persons reservation quota. Unfortunately lower office of the bank replied that there have no promotion reservation for disabled officers to manager cadre. Basing on this reply I approached the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India about the problem to get my rightful promotion. Then the Director, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India directed the bank to look in to the matter for my promotion. Then bank have not replied to the ministry as the ministry is supremo for all disabled amendments etc. Therefore ministry has forwarded my appeal for consideration to the Industrial Relation Section of Banking Department,Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and was pending for hearing. But for an speedy recovery I forced to file an write petition at High Court of Karnataka and was listed for hearing and was actioned to issue notice to the bank. Now the matter was pending at High Court of Karntaka.
Please ascertain the outcome of the case for an amicable approach.
Details are available at : http://www.petitiononline.com/924/petition.html
Vir Kashmiri
02 November 2008 at 06:09
How can an Indian born citizen whose parents migrated to Pakistan at the time of Partition when she was 3 years old reclaim her Indian nationality. She is a US citizen now, living in United States of America.
Can she also apply for her three kids. Two adults and one minor.
yellownpurple2002@yahoo.com
Vijay Kumar
01 November 2008 at 23:29
What is the limitation for moving SC under art. 32 for violation of rights granted under art.21?
Neeraj Chawla
01 November 2008 at 20:07
DEAR SIR,,
THE UNDERSIGNED IS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.). MYSELF NEED TO ASK A QUERY REGARDING A FALSE CASE REGISTERED AGAINST ONE MR. NARESH DHALL WHO DARED TO BROUGHT CORRUPT OFFICIALS BOOKED WITH THE HELP OF C.B.I. AND HIMSELF GOT IMPLICATED IN A FALSE CASE REGISTERED BY THE LUDHIANA POLICE AT P.S. KOTWALI ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) OF THE SAME NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA. THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS:-
IN F.I.R. NO. 81 REGISTERED AT P.S. KOTWALI, LUDHIANA DATED 03-10-2008
U/S 379,419,120B IPC
ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) S. JASPAL SINGH
1. THAT ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF SURVEY BY MITTAL SURVEYORS AS PER THEIR RECOMMENDATION THE DEPARTMENT PROMPTLY COMPLETED ALL FORMALITIES FOR TIMELY DISBURSEMENT OF CLAIM CHEQUE TO NARESH DHALL WHO WAS DULY INFORMED. THAT ON DATED 30-05-2007 COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH WAS PRESENT IN HIS ALONGWITH O.P. MALHOTRA DEPUTY MANAGER AND AROUND 4.15 P.M. THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL CAME ALONGWITH ONE GENTLEMAN AND NARESH DHALL INTRODUCED THE SAID GENTLEMAN AS SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH. MR. NARESH DHALL ASKED THE COMPLAINANT THAT THIS CLAIM FILE BE SHOWN TO CBI OFFICER FROM CBI AS HE HAS TO PERUSE THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTIGATION. THE COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH BELEIVING THE SAID GENTLEMAN TO BE THE SENIOR OFFICER OF THE CBI HANDED OVER THE CLAIM FILE DOCUMENTS AS TO ASSIST HIM FOR THR PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= AND LATER ON 6.6.2007 DULY SIGNED CONSENT LETTER OF MR. NARESH DHALL FROM THE CLAIM FILE AND TOLD THAT AS THE MATTER REGARDING THIS CLAIM IS UNDER INVERSTIGATION WITH CBI AS SUCH HE HAS TO DISCUSS WITH SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI UPON WHICH CBI OFFICER STARTED CONTACTING HIS SENIOR OFFICIAL ON TELEPHONE AND WHILE TALKING ON PHONE MOVED OUT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH CLAIM CHEQUE. NOTEDLY NARESH DHALL KEPT SITTING WITH COMPLAINANT IN THE OFFICE ITSELF AND TOLD JASPAL SINGH THAT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF CBI OFFICIALS HE CAN NOT COMPLY WITH ANY FORMALITY AND ASSURED THAT SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI SHALL BE BACK AS SOON AS HE GET NOD FROM HIS SENIOR OFFICIALS HE WILL SIGN THE RECEIPT. BUT AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR NEARLY 2 HOUR THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI DID NOT RETURN AND NARESH DHALL TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI AND HIS TEAM HAS COME FROM CHANDIGARH IN CONNECTION WITH ___________ OTHER RAIDS TO BE CONDUCTED IN LUDHIANA TODAY AND PROMISED TO COMPLETE AND SIGNED THE REST OF FORMALITIES NEXT DAY.
2. THE COMPLAINANT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT NARESH DHALL NEVER RETURNED AND IT WAS REVEALED LATER ON THAT NO OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH WAS DEPUTED BY CBI WITH NARESH DHALL TO SECURE THE DOCUMENTS AND INSPECT THE FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION.
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL:
1. IF ON 30-05-2007 ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL AND ONE OTHER PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM) WHO WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. NARESH DHALL AS CBI OFFICER AS THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= WHY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA DIDN’T INFORM THE POLICE AUTHORITIES AND PROCEED FOR THE STOP PAYMENT OF CHEQUE. ACTUALLY THE CHEQUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF M/S SHALLY COLLECTION WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS MR. NARESH DHALL ONLY & IT WAS A PAYEE’S A/C CHEQUE. THE COMPLAINANT MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA SIGNED THE SAME CHEQUE ONLY AT THE TIME WHILE HANDING OVER IT TO THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHO WAS THERE ONLY TO OBTAIN THE CHEQUE AFTER HE GOT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR
Vivek Banginwar
01 November 2008 at 19:47
Sir, kindly provide me a format of 7/12 extract and mutation in english format urgently.
thanks
ram
01 November 2008 at 18:28
Sir, Will you please the information about the gezette copy of whith areas applied the Depost of title Deed in AP Thank @
V V SATYANARAYANA
01 November 2008 at 17:54
Sirs,
In the the year 2002 in June & August we have procured 3 cranes at a cost of Rs. 1 crore each from a reputed cranes manufacturing in India.
In August 2004 we have purchased one more crane from them. Right from the delivery of the equipment at the site, these machines have not been performing and persistently giving troube and we could not get desired production from these 4 equipments. Though the Seller was attending but never the problems were sorted out. If a defect is rectified again another defect would crop up like that.For rectifying these defects also we have spent lakhs of rupees on each of these 4 cranes. Made full payments to the Party except in one case where we have deducted very little towards non-performance (there is no legal dispute for this deducted amount).
Finally the Seller stopped manufacturer stopped the manufacture of these cranes from 2006 or 2007 that means there might be some design fault or so. We have made several correspondences by way of lodging complaints highlighting the problems right through.
Can we at this stage can write to them to compensate for the losses we have suffered or can we approach the Consumer Forum for the deficiency in service.
Is there any remedy available to us and whether we have lost the opportunity under Limitation Act.
Kindly give your opinion as to what best we can do for redressal.
Thanking you,
V.V.Satyanarayana
Member Strength 9,56,806 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
doughter's part in father's property
can a marrid daughter get the properties from his father's property