NILESH
14 August 2009 at 07:47
MY WIFE HAD NOMINATED HER SISTER AS AN GAURDIAN IN PROVIDENT FUND, PENSION, GSLI, GRATUITY, SUPER ANUUATION AND IN SALARY AND OTHER DUES. SHE HAS NOMINATED HER SISTER IN 50% AS AN GAURIDIAN OF MY DUAGHTER OF 4 YRS. AND REST TO ME. KNOW AT THE TIME OF CLAIM, SHE HAS REFUSED TO PAY THE AMOUNT WHICH SHE WILL RECV ON BEHALF OF MY DAUGHTER. IS THE NOMINEE ALOWED TO USE THE MONEY? AS AN LEGAL HEIR IS NOT THAT MYSELF AND MY DAUGHTER ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO RECV. THE MONEY? IF NOMINEE IS NOT A FAMILY MEMBER THEN IS NOT THAT THE NOMINATION IS CALLED INVALID?
PLS DO SUGGEST WITH DETAIL MENTIONING THE ACT, SECTION NO AND IF ANY OTHERS. ALSO DO LET ME KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINATION OF NOMINEE AND WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES OF NOMINEE. WHAT I HAVE LEARED IS NOMINEE IS JUST LIKE TO TRUSTEE WHO CAN RECV. THE MONEY BUT CANNOT US THE MONEY.
SECONDLY MY WIFES SISTER AND HER HUSBAND'S FINANCIAL POSITION IS NOT GOOD. HER HUSBAND IS HAVING BANK DEBTS IN THE MARKET. MY WIFES BROTHER IS SEATING IDEAL AT HOME DOING NOTHING. SO THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR ALL OF THEM IS MY FATHER IN LAW'S PENSION.
NILESH
14 August 2009 at 07:42
MY WIFE HAD NOMINATED HER SISTER AS AN GAURDIAN IN PROVIDENT FUND, PENSION, GSLI, GRATUITY, SUPER ANUUATION AND IN SALARY AND OTHER DUES. SHE HAS NOMINATED HER SISTER IN 50% AS AN GAURIDIAN OF MY DUAGHTER OF 4 YRS. AND REST TO ME. KNOW AT THE TIME OF CLAIM, SHE HAS REFUSED TO PAY THE AMOUNT WHICH SHE WILL RECV ON BEHALF OF MY DAUGHTER. IS THE NOMINEE ALOWED TO USE THE MONEY? AS AN LEGAL HEIR IS NOT THAT MYSELF AND MY DAUGHTER ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO RECV. THE MONEY? IF NOMINEE IS NOT A FAMILY MEMBER THEN IS NOT THAT THE NOMINATION IS CALLED INVALID?
priyas
13 August 2009 at 19:08
hi friends,
i want information abt mfa proceedings in highcourt, my client is a original claimant in m.a.c.t case she was awarded nearly 7 laks but the respondents have appealed for high court, in 2005, recently the case was heard but nobody admitted frm my clients side, should i file written objections, now it has gone for lcr. since im not in high court practice i need some advice kindly help me
kirtirani sole
12 August 2009 at 23:47
Resp.Sir / Madam
I'm final year LLM student,doing specialisation in Business Laws. I wish to make my career in Arbitration Law, pls suggest me what proper steps shold I take?
I don't have any experiance in this field, is it must? whether any diploma is available to get required qualification.
thanking you.
Meenal
12 August 2009 at 13:26
A credit card was issued to me in 2003,which got stolen from me along with the other contents of my purse on 27th March 2008 at 8:30 pm. Accordingly I lodged a police complaint same day & informed the Bank within 24 hrs.
However, the card got misused to the tune of Rs.75,734/- before it got blocked. I signed none of the charge slips for these transactions.
All the above details were shared with variety of Bank representatives, contact centre (atleast 5-6 times), collections officer, risk officer.
I have never used this Bank's credit card and have not had any transactions on the card since issuance.
The incident occurred more than a year ago, and since then I have been following up with the contact centre for investigation. For the first 6 months they reversed the credit & were supposedly investigating. No communication was sent to me. However since the month of October 2008, Bank has been following up with me for the payments. I do not want to make the payment as I have not used the card.
I have raised the following queries to the Bank for which they have not given me a satisfactory response:-
1. As per the terms and conditions, the complaint regarding the lost card should be lodged within 24 hours. Then why am I being penalised.
2.As per the Bank they have done the investigation & apparently it has resulted in the Bank favor. I do not understand this point. Whom have they raised a dispute to? & why are they not sharing the details with me. The merchant bank where the card was misused does not have any record of dispute raised by ICICI Bank.
3. The investigations should have been started by Bank immediately after my lodging the complaint and ideally the charge slips should have been retrieved immediately from the merchant where the card was misused. Why did Bank wait for the expiry period of 6 months for the retrival. If the chargslips are old due to this time lag, I am not responsible for the same.
4. If the charge slips were retrieved on time, bank would have found out that that the signature on the charge slips did not match with that on the card and the culprits could have been caught at that time itself.
I have been getting calls from various agencies of the bank using different tacticts of threatening me & my family to pay up the amount which has doubled in the course of time.
Points which I have to support that my card was lost is that:
1.NC of the lost purse & card
2.Blocking of other credit cards during the same time
3.New PAN card & Driving license requisite, which was also lost with the purse.
4.The card was never used by me since inception(2003)
5.I obviously have not signed on the chargeslips
Please let me know if my stand of not making the payment is correct & if the Bank can take any legal action on me. Thanks.
JAGNARAIN SHARMA
12 August 2009 at 09:56
CITATION IS PUBLISHED IN AIR OR ANY OTHER LAW JOURNAL, I AM NOT AWARE(JUDGMENT IS DT. 30-1-2009 AND PTI HAS RELESED THE NEWS AS GIVEN BELOW)
PTI
First Published : 01 Feb 2009 02:34:38 PM IST
Last Updated :
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that a district collector is not a judge and as such cannot seek immunity from prosecution in criminal cases.
A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal ruled that the immunity granted to judges under Section 77 IPC would not be available to district collectors or the land acquisition officers who acquire private lands and award compensation.
"The Collector is neither a Judge as defined under Section 19 nor does he act judicially, when discharging any of the functions under the (Land Acquisition) Act. Therefore he is not entitled to protection under Section 77 IPC," the apex court observed.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside a Rajasthan High Court order wherein the latter had quashed the FIR registered against the Jaipur district collector in a land acquisition case.
The FIR alleges that the Collector while acquiring certain private lands had grabbed lands belonging to the Rajasthan Housing Board in collusion with some having vested interest.
The local police had registered a case of cheating and fraud against the district collector but the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the official had acted in his official capacity as a "judge" and as such was entitled to the immunity granted under Section 77 IPC.
Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgeenet " Collectors cannot seek immunity in criminal cases". In fact nobody can be given immunity in criminal and corruption cases not even the PRESIDENT OF INDIA. The moment immunity is given it allows corruption and malpractices. AS it is INDIA HAS become a CRIMINALS PARADISE. This is dangerous and image of the country is bad internationally, TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL HAS ALREADY puit India as highly corrupt. This is bad and must be erased by expeditious judgements and punishments by confiscating illgotten money. B S Ganesh, ganshar@dataone.in 70/9 Basappa Layout, Hanumanthnagar, BANGALORE 560 019
By B S GANESH 2/1/2009 9:57:00 PM
Post your comments *
India Express Buzz
Vikram Chandra
11 August 2009 at 21:04
Hi Friends !!
The query is;
My client's father (died) holds a decree of partition for the year 1974 which has become final and as per the decree he has got 144 Sq. Yds., which is as per the commissioner's report and which has been annexed to the decree copy. Whereas my client is in possession of 112 Sq. Yds., as on today. Inview of the old structure my client is raising the new structure after obtaining the permission from the local authority. Further, my client has become the owner of the said partitioned property in view of the relinquishment deed executed by her brothers and mother in her favour recently in the year 2007 as my client's father has died. Further, there is a mistake which has crept in the said Relinquishment Deed while executing the said deed the total area of property was shown only as 117 Sq. Yds., Where as the Decree copy of the court shows the total area which my client's father got is 144 Sq. Yds. Further, my client is only in possession of 112 Sq. Yds., Now the neighbours i.e., the other parties to the said partition decree are in illegal occupation of another difference area and the said fact is discovered right now by my client inview of the latest construction which is being raised by her as per the relinquishment deed. Now the query is what is the area she should claim in her suit which is going to be filed by her either it should be an area as per;
1. A Partition Decree
2. A Relinquishment Deed
or
3. The Physical Possession which my client holds as on today. To get back her land.
But, fact remains that my client has lost the area and it was discovered recently inview of the construction being raised by her that too on the basis of a Relinquishment Deed which is incorrect if it be compared with the Partition Decree which has become final. Now what is the suit my client should file before the competent civil court inview of the said facts to get back her area as per the Partition Decree.
regards,
vikram.
Pramod Kumar
11 August 2009 at 20:04
Dear Members,
Could anyone list the format of petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for seeking an interim relief.
Regards,
Pramod
saswati gupta bagchi
11 August 2009 at 18:35
A factory is constructed on an agricultural land which is still not converted. Sanctioned plan is there of the factory site. If a bank wants to create equitable morgage of the immovable property i.e. the said factory site against loan, will it be a valid mortgage?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
REGULARISATION OF PLOT PURCHASED IN AUCTION
STATE GOVT. PERMITTED REULARISATION OF PLOT PURCHASED IN AUCTION FROM UIT AFTER AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION.BUT,IN THE MEANTIME THE SCHEME WAS TRANSFERRED TO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.ALTHOUGH THE MINISTER IS SAME MUNICIPAL COUNCIL IS TAKING PLEA THAT ORDERS OF URBAN DEVELOPEMENT ARE NOT BINDING ON THEM.FIRST APPELLATE COURT ALSO ACCEPTED THEIR SUBMISSION ON A CITATION OF TRANSFER MATTER OF A LDC FROM UIT TO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.ALTHOUGH SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BUT AS AT ADMISSION STAGE ONLY A FEW SECONDS ARE ALLOWED I AM AFRAID OF IT. ANY REMEDY?PERVERSE FINDINGS ARE ALSO THERE.