gora chamber oflaw Rajender Kumar
22 August 2009 at 21:25
Hindu person sold 4 shops to muslims. Out of 4 shops, two shops (grounf floor only) purchased by "A". Now the "A" intending to purchase the first floor portion from the owner and issued anotice intimating his intention to purchase the same, if the owner intends to sell the same as per market value. But now the another owner of two shops has purchased the all 4 shops first floor area in sopite of notice of :A:. Now what law can apply for remedy as plaintff and defendant are belongs to Hndu & Muslim. As per HS Act, Mohammad law, if so under what provision. PLease anwer me and if so refer case law. My mail" gclrajender@gmail.com
Member (Account Deleted)
22 August 2009 at 06:08
A partition suit is filed by one brother against other. There are three sisters alive. Date fixed for filing W/S. on that date instead filing WS can the defendant brother file an application under O1 R 10(2) for joining sisters? (All Hindu)
PRAKASHCHANDRA MARU
21 August 2009 at 23:10
hello all learned experts
in the accident case i joined the oppsite party vehiclw owner and the insurance comapny by whom accident done with theapplicant (applicant means claimanant of the claim case) but i have not joined the vehicle's owner and insurance compny of the compalainat what effect of it it will the effect the case the reason not join the said claimaint's vehicle is that there was no any negligency on the part of them psl inform thanks in advance
AJIT KAWATKAR
21 August 2009 at 17:49
with reference to the news mentioned here below,can any body provide full text?
Declaration to acquire land must within one year of notification: SC
21 Aug 2009, 0259 hrs IST, PTI
Print EMail Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has to mandatorily issue a “declaration” for acquiring public land within a year after
the “preliminary notification” had been issued as otherwise the acquisition proceedings would become illegal. Upholding the appeal filed by Vijay Narayan Thatte and certain other aggrieved land owners of Maharashtra, the apex court said if the statute prescribes certain rules and prohibitions, then the same have to be complied with.
A bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly quashed the acquisition proceedings launched by Maharashtra government on the ground that the declaration proceedings as mandated under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not followed by the government.
Under section 4 of the Act, the government has to first issue a “preliminary notification” informing the public about its proposal to acquire the public land in question. Thereafter, under section 6 of the Act, the government has to issue a separate “declaration” about its intent to acquire the land. But under section 6, it is clearly stated that such a declaration must be mandatorily made within a year of the issuance of preliminary notification.
In this case, the Maharashtra government first issued the preliminary notification on August 29, 2002, and thereafter the declaration under section 6 on October 30, 2006, more than four years after the preliminary notification.
The aggrieved land holders challenged the declaration but the Bombay High Court rejected their plea following which they appealed in the apex court.
Desi
21 August 2009 at 14:04
What is the period of notice for sale of immovable property?
K.Durga Srinivas
20 August 2009 at 15:38
1. The said pronote was signed by father , who is nomore now on 04-09-1991 for the amount taken for the Business purposes.The business has partners.
2. The title deeds of the land handed over on 21-12-1991
3. Memorandum depositing title deeds signed on 25-12-1991
4. Legal notice given on 15-03-1994
5. Suit was filed on us filed on 05-9-2003
The suit was upheld by the District Court and issued a personal decree to pay the amount.We have a plan to go for High Court, hyderabad.
Could you please let us know the chances of winning the same.
pankaj
20 August 2009 at 11:48
Where I can get details about consumer forum act to lodge complaint for mishandling of operation by doctor
Prashant
20 August 2009 at 09:58
Dear All
I have taken an admission in one of the driving schools in the city. I took the admission on the basis of advertisement in one of the reputed news papers. Now they have not completed my course. In the advertisement they mentioned that the course is of 10 days. I took the admission on 9 July 09 & since then they have never followed the timing, everytime I had to contact them. Despite of my repeated follow up now they are not turning up. They are avoiding my phone calls.I made many sms also but they are not responding. My fee was including learning & permanent license fees. I paid fees for learning which also they are not paying, they are only giving me committments. Now considering their behaviour I feel that they will cheat me in permanent license also.
So in such case what is the remedy available to me.
Whether telephonic conversation is treated as an evidence?
I have got the receipt of driving school of Fees paid to them & on the receipt they have mentioned that "with license". Other than this I do not have any document with me.
They used to take my sign on the time sheet.
I am planning to send one letter to their office stating all the facts. So can i send the letter through courier & keep POD with me or should I send it through RPAD.
Kindly advice
Thank in advance
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Limitaion Act (Article 54)
I have filed suit for speicific performance. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale on 10.1.1997. The time was fixed to perfomed the agreement within three years (i.e. 9.1.2000). The plaintiff has sent the legal notice to the defendant on 9.4.1997 to perform the part of the agreement. The defendant didnot performed. I have filed suit specific performance on 21.2.2001. the the suit filed by the plaintiff barred by the limitation? Whether the suitis maintainable under law or not?