PRASAD AKS
03 November 2015 at 23:26
MY FATHER A FREEDOM FIGHTER FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE. WHEN HE IS IN JAIL ON THOSE DAYS , LOST ALL OF HIS BELONGINGS. TO THESE PEOPLE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS PROVIDED SOME BENEFITS BY WAY OF FREE RAIL PASS AND PENSION EVERY MONTH. TILL 1989 HE ENJOYED AND PASSED AWAY AT HIS AGE OF 80 YEARS. WE ARE 3 BROTHERS AND 2 SISTERS ALL MARRIED. 2 ELDER BROTHERS REACHED MY FATHER AND MOTHER. 1 ELDER SISTER WIDOW. NOW MY QUESTION HERE, PLEASE
1. CAN ELIGIBLE TO FREE RAILWAY PASS TO 64 YRS AGED SON? (Senior citizen common to all)
2. CAN I ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION AS A SON?
3. TO WHOM I APPLY AND WHAT WAY TO APPLY?
4. BOTH SISTERS WHAT BENEFITS GOVERNMENT PROVIDED?
5. WHAT MORE BENEFITS GOVERNMENT PROVIDED?
REQUEST REPLY FROM GREAT PERSONS AND ADVICE'S.
THANKS A LOT
Anonymous
08 May 2011 at 10:47
I AM ANDHRA POULTERY TRADER PURCHASED SUNFLOWER DEOILED CAKE FROM KARNATAKA.,AND MAHARASTRA (OIL PLANTS) SOLD TO POULTERY FARM IN ORISSA. NO C FORM ISSUED TO ANY SUPPLIER DUE TO THE SOLVENT OIL PLANTS EXEMPTED FROM TAX AND THEY GIVEN F FORMS DULY AVAILABLE IN MARKET. THE GOODS TRANSPORTED BILL OF EXCHANGE MADE IN ANDHRA AND TO SOME GOODS
CAMP INVOICE ISSUED AT KARNATAKA AND MAHARASTRA. THE OUTOF STATE WAYBILLS ISSUED BY ANDHRA COOMMERCIAL TAX DEPT.
ORISSA POULTERY FORMS DONT HAVE SALESTAX REGISTERATION AND EXEMPTED FROM ALL TAXES.
AT THE TIME OFASSESSMENT CTO EXEMPTED LEVY OF TAX. AFTER 2 YRS. AUDIT PARTY POINTED OUT LEVIED TAX. APPEAL DISMISSED
THEN APPROACHED HIGHCOURT. THE COURT REFERRED TO DEPT. FOR CLARIFICATION AND ISSUED STAY. NOW THE MATTER IN TRIBUNAL NOT YET SITTING.
ALSO THE SAME MATERIAL PURCHASED IN ANDHRA
FACTORIES AND THEY COLLECTED 4% APGST AND THE GOODS TRANSPORTED TO ORISSA AND PAID 6% TAX. THE DEPT. ASKS TO PAY AGAIN 4%.
DEPT. NOT ACCEPTS FACTORY BILL COLLECTION OF 4%
THE PROBLEM ONLY TOME. SO MANY TRADERS STILL SUPPLYING THE MATERIALS FROM ONE STATE TO ORISSA TO THE SAME POULTERY. AFTER THIS PROBLEM RAISED BY THE DEPT. I STOPPED TRADINF TO SAFE GUARD MYSELF.
PLEASE LET ME I AM RIGHT OR WRONG?
Anonymous
30 April 2011 at 22:54
Please help and let me know Sir
1. Revision of PENSION from 01-04-2001
2. Revision of FAMILY PENSION from 01-04- 2001 still now not received upto 30- 04-2011
3. Admission in SUPREME COURT ON 16-04- 2011
WHAT IS THE STATUS. BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY CAN THE JUDGES SHOW COURTESY
TO OUR HARD BLOOD SERVICE SERVED TO SBI
Anonymous
12 September 2010 at 13:10
Bank auctioned the property but DRAT STAYED TO CONFIRM THE AUCTION BIDDER. In the meantime before confirm AUCTION if the defendents paid the entire due AUCTION canelled? The defendents have right ontheir property?
2) The property worth Rs. 6 crores Due to bank amount Rs. 22lakhs. Can bank auctioned the entire property? OR the bank auctioned to their extent of debt? AS
per AIR1997SC2106 i heard verdit as the bank have right to auction to the extent of their debt, not the entire property? Is it correct? PLS waiting your valuable replies and suggestions and citations if any
than Q
Anonymous
08 September 2010 at 16:22
DRT verdit in case i found: the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therefore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case
How the defendents cameout fromthe clutches of bank? They win the case DRAT?
Surprising banks if not prpoerly maintain how the coustmer saved? customer is GOD to the bank, but now no bank feels the same, moreover behaves and using abusing language. NPA became more fraud and it became GOLDMINE to the bank officials
The party submitted the account through an CA and moreover party paid excess of Rs.4 lakhs. The bank manager in his cross accepted that the bank failed to credit some amounts tothe account. The fixed deposits Rs.1.25 lakhs not credited to theaccount and states there is no record. FDRs no."s,amount,dated stated the defendents. Those are pledged tobank. The bank states orginal account book misplaced/not found/lost. Typed a/c copy produced. So many credit vouchers not reflected in the account. So how far DRAT help tothe defendents? possible
Also the bank financed and account inthe name of ALT (ITS name of the building)but the mortaged property inthe name SKT. Suit filed inthe name of ALT. VALID?
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 10:39
DRT verdit in case i found: the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therefore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case
How the defendents cameout fromthe clutches of bank? They win the case DRAT?
Surprising banks if not prpoerly maintain how the coustmer saved? customer is GOD to the bank, but now no bank feels the same, moreover behaves and using abusing language. NPA became more fraud and it became GOLDMINE to the bank officials.
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 10:21
DRT decreed 2009 Rs.18lakhs with further interest @6%pa Now the claim ofthe bank Rs. 27lakhs within a year. Principal amount Rs. 11.60lakhs. Is it posible? Bank not giving account copy and going to auctioned secured asset. DRAT stayed not to confirm auction. But bank going to confirm auction. Is it valid when stayed?
Contempt of court applicable tobank?
Anonymous
05 September 2010 at 00:48
TajaNews - National
SC upholds constitutional validity of Securitisation Act - 4-, 2004 - 08: 0
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Securtisation Act empowering the financial institutions to attach and sell assets of companies who have defaulted in repaying loans taken by them.
However, the court declared section 17 (2) of the Act as unconstitutional. This provided for pre-deposit of 75 per cent of the liability, if defaulting company wanted to appeal against the order of attachment of its assets. [ TajaNews
----this message iget insearch engine "cuil"
Anonymous
04 September 2010 at 12:13
Supreme Court upholds Securitisation Act. The Supreme Court on April 8 upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act
TAJA NEWS found that DRT dont have right to auction any prpoerty. A verdit in supreme court on thursday 2/9/10 Is it true? if true how caniget total judgement?
Member Strength 9,48,021 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Bank fraud
YOUR OPINION PLEASE:--
DRT PASSED ORDER AS : "'THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FROM THE BANK SO FAR AS MAINTAINING OF THE ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED AND IT IS CLEAR IN ALL THE BANK CASES AND THE ACCOUNT COPY WILL FASTEN THE LIABILITY BUT IN THIS CASE THE ACCOUNT ITSELF IS INCORRECT AND PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THE ACCOUNT COPY OF THE BANK AND THIS ACCOUNT COPY SEEMS TO BE TOTALLY INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE SEVERAL PAY IN SLIPS FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS WHICH ARE MARKED AS EX. B13 TO EX. B18 CONTAINING MANY BOOKS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACCOUNT COPY CANNOT BE BELIEVED AND THEREFORE THE OA HAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,28,685/- WITH SIMPLE INTEREST @6% PER ANUM FROM THE DATE OF OA TILL REALIZATION. THIS RECOVERY CERTIFICATE IS BEING ISSUED SINCE IT IS PUBLIC MONEY AND THERE IS NO DOCUMENT TO SHOW HOW MUCH AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY DUE TO THE APPLICANT BANK. THE BANK NEVER PROVED THE AMOUNT DUE . IT IS THE INITIAL BURDEN ON THE BANK ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE ACT SEC. 101 TO 103 , AND THE INITIAL BURDEN IS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE BANK CANNOT BASE ON THE DEMERITS OF THE DEFENDANTS CASE."
ON OR AFTER DRAT "AS SUCH ON THAT GROUND ITSELF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DRT HAS TO BE SET ASIDE AND IT IS SET ASIDE." "THE RESPONDENT BANK is hereby directed TO PREPARE THE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY THE BORROWER AND ALSO FDRS DETAILS WITH ACCRUED INTEREST AS ON THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED ADJUSTMENTS , AND SUCH STATEMENT S SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE BORROWER: WHEREUPON THE APPELLANTS COULD FILE OBJECTIONS IF ANY AND THEREAFTER THE P.O SHALL ALLOW THEM TO ADDUCE ORAL EVIDENCE ON THAT LIMITED SCOPE AND AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, THE P.O, DRT SHALL DECIDE THE MATTER. TWO MONTHS TIME IS GRANTED TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILED STATEMENT. BOTH SIDES SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE DRT ON 26/3/2015. THIS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DRT AND BY REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO DRT AS AFORESAID."
DRT P.O.NO REGULAR POSTED FROM 1-1-2015. BUT BANK NOT AT TRY TO SUBMIT ANY ACCOUNTS TO COURT OR TO PARTY EVEN CONTACTED BANK OFFICIALS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. ALL ARE SILENT WATCH AS SPECTATOR.
NO COURT DECLARED PARTY AS DEFAULTER. ONLY ON SYMPATHY GROUND BANK GOT DECREE.
PARTY AMOUNTS ARE NOT PUBLIC MONEY. ITS NOT CHARITY INSTITUTION. ITS ONLY PROFIT
ORIENTED PARTNERSHIP FIRM. ALREADY 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS LAPSED BANK NOT RESPOND. MANAGER,A.O visiting DRT&DRAT AS HONEYMOON TRIP SPENT AND DEBIT TO PARTY ACCOUNT. LEGAL fees Adjustments., Security pays 5,000 debiting 15,000/-.
PARTY FULLY FALL IN FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. WHAT ACT APPLICABLE TO RECOVER PROPERTY? ELIGIBLE FOR LOSS AND COMPENSATION WITHOUT
ANY LEGAL EXPENDITURE,&TRAVELING. ANY REMEDY.
aks_prasad2001@yahoo.com