Dheeraj Kaushik
29 August 2014 at 12:16
is Decree may be set aside and if yes what is the time limit to make an application to set aside the decree
498A-filed
10 August 2014 at 13:23
Dear Experts,
As per the recent supreme court judgement, the jurisdiction of the 138 NI case is at the place where drawee's bank branch is located. And since the hon.Apex court in its wisdom has decided to apply it retrospectively, I have some apprehensions about my case after reading the judgement and I need your help to understand its effect on my case.
My wife's account is in state A where we lived together after marriage.
I shifted to my home town after she left me in state B and deposited the cheque in my bank account in state B. Sent notice from state B as well and filed the case.
Cognizance taken under 420 IPC & 138 NI & summons issued after recording of statements u/s 200 & 202 of crpc and after submitting the list of documents.
She is in state C at her parents home.
Now my apprehension is that she can put a transfer petition in the supreme court and get a stay on the case. Because there will be thousands and thousands of transfer petition of cheque bounce cases, my case may get delayed for months.
If the case gets transferred, I will have to travel long distance to pursue my case.
Kindly give your inputs and also guide me whether this transfer is also applicable in my type of case where sec 420 of IPC is also applied along with the 138 NI.
hdshardik
24 July 2014 at 13:36
before go and filing the suit u/s 434 of co act 1956 , what is the bsia parameter will require to gather in terms of documentataion when debtors are not paying after 3 years and amt is substantil ?
how can my firm from private co collect my dues .?
my firm is not registered but cover under IT audit .
what document i have to gather to make suit u/s 434 to private co.
Mayank Kumar Advocate
11 May 2014 at 11:44
MY QUESTION IS ONCE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE TREAT A CASE IN ORDER 37 AND SERVED SUMMONED TO DEFENDANT AND NO ONE COME TO FILE MEMO OF APPEARANCE WITH IN 10 DAYS AFTER THAT NOR FILE LEAVE TO DEFEND AS PER TIME LIMITATION OF LAW AT NOW THIS STAGE COURT IS ASKING CLARIFICATION TO ME ABOUT SUIT NOW IN MY SUIT COURT ORDERED PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY TO COURT SOME CLARIFICATION AND COURT MY SUIT CONVERT INTO SIMPLE RECOVERY SUIT
1. THIS IS RIGHT AS PER LAW ONCE TREAT A SUIT IN ORDER 37 AND SERVICING TO DEFENDANT AFTER THAT COURT CAN CONVERT SUIT INTO SIMPLE RECOVERY SUIT
2. DOES ADJ HAVE A POWER TO review HIS ORDER ?
yeteendra naidu
14 October 2013 at 02:37
Is it binding on the A.P. or U.P. High Court or Lower Courts to accept the Judgements of other state High Courts when citation are offered by Advocates while defending a case ?
Dharmendra More
29 September 2011 at 12:39
Can anyone make me clear on excess non-occupation charges that hsg society charges is as per suprem court interim relief.
Pls read this:
--
State Government’s Issue on NOC regulations in 2001, which fixed the ceiling on NOC at 10 percent of the maintenance charges, was challenged recently on 2/3/07, when Mount Blanc CHS at Peddar road filed a special leave petition (SLP no. 7964, 7965, 7966) and demanded interim relief and autonomous authority to decide upon the non-occupancy charges. This petition was called for hearing on 19th June; wherein the Supreme Court upheld the High court ruling but provided interim relief to Mount Blanc to charge 10 % of the rent recovered by the owner as NOC and not 10 % of the maintenance charges.
--
Two points from the extract above:
1. The Supreme Court upheld the High court ruling - Does it mean that NOC cannot be more than 10% of the service
charge for the society.
2. ... but provided interim relief to Mount Blanc to charge 10 % of the rent recovered by the owner as NOC and not 10 % of the maintenance charges
Does this mean that this was only applicable to Mount Blanc society?
Statement 1 and 2 appear contradictory - what proves in the judgement above (or any other judgement - please provide details) that a society cannot charge NOC more than 10% of the service/maintainance.
Unscrpulous societies under greed are even charging 100% more (double the maintainance charges) NOC as part of the total maintainance charge from owners of let-out proprties, when the facilities/services provided are the same to all.
Please provide legally acceptable pointers with details for the benefit of all.
Harsh
29 June 2011 at 16:18
Is it necessary to apply application for proclamation of offenders in cout. or the court will do it without the request of the plaintiff?
Rahul Singh
24 June 2011 at 21:07
I have filed complaint case U/s.138 N.I.Act,on the 7th April'2011 with court fees as was applicable then(the amendment with respect to court fees came in effect from 26/4/2011),now the case is heard on regd.& fixing for appropriate court fees.Whether I am to pay court fees as of dt.7/4/2011 when case is filed or when case is regd.i.e.after 26/4/2011 amend. if it is regd. after this date? What is the Legal position?
bharat
24 June 2011 at 18:44
We require mereger order of M/s Reliance Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd. with Reliance ports & Terminal Ltd. passed by hon'ble Bombay High Court Dt.24/07/2009 can you mail us this order at vinayak_techno@yahoo.co.in . We dont have case number
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
N i act 138 section
dear sir
accused convicted in 138 section in
M M COURT
they want to appeal in seasons court
I want to know what is time limit for
appeal