Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 18:50
If someone has signed an agreement (bond) of "x" amount with any company to work with it for 12 months after an overseas training, whereby such overseas training has been successfully completed and subsequent to return of such candidate from the training some dispute has been arisen?
Please reply?
sreedhar
27 October 2009 at 18:32
Company A is liable to pay some amount to Company X. There are correspondances in which Company A has accepted its liablity to pay Co. X. It is now come to know that company B is also functioning in the same address of Company A and company B has acquired 100% equity stake in company A. Whether Company B can be made liable to pay the amount due and payable by company A.
Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 17:26
Respected Sir,
This is a Civil Matter and I need whether the decree is in limitation period or not?
Simply I am hereby giving the details.
I filed a suit for Specific performance and the same was dismissed. As against the said dismissal I preferred an appeal before the High Court. While pending the Civil Appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise memo and accordingly the said appeal was ended. After that due to some reasons, again both the parties have entered into another compromise petition before the lower court and the said compromise was recorded on 21-02-1985.While passing the said 2nd compromise decree, the court has instructed the DHR/Plaintiff, “in case of default of the JDRs/Defendants, the DHR/Plaintiff is at liberty to approach the court (lower court) and get the sale deed duly registered through court. But the DHR/plaintiff instead of approaching the lower court approached the revenue authorities for regularization of the alienation on the basis of the said compromise And accordingly, the Revenue authorities had regularized the said alienation, as there is a provision to go and regularize.
Now the contention of the JDRS/defendants are there was no notice served on them by the revenue authorities, before passing the order. The JDRS/Defendants have challenged the same before all the revenue authorizes and as well as the single judge of High court. When it was came to Double bench of High Court, an order was passed against the DHR/plaintiff stating that the authorities below are not followed the rules. And an SLP has been filedby DHR/Plaintiff and the same is pending before the Supreme Court.
Now the pioint is:-
1. From the date of 2nd compromise decree ie., on 21-02-1985 both the parties are defending their case in courts, even till today.
2. So now is there any possibility to execute the 2nd compromise decree by DHR/plaintiff, now?
3. Or the said decree is time barred?
4. Even now also they are not claiming their rights over the said lands.
Plz. Clarify.
Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 17:07
Sir/ Madam,
I am a practising CA, my father in law owns ancestral property. This property is divided into two parts- 2 shops facing the road and the remaining area used for our residential purpose.
The said 2 shops have been given on rent long back by my father in law' father. As regards one of the shops, my father in law has filed an eviction case after unsuccessful informl requests to the tenant. As i am in need of premises for starting my own practise, we have filed such eviction proceedings.
The lower court has already ruled in our favour, however the tenant has appealed further citing that the lower court has ignored his hardship pleas and that the lower court has ruled inefficiently.
The case is in process, the next higher authority being the High court.
I would like your expert opinion on:
1. Similiar case references-
Supreme court rulings and other Court rulings details.
2. Hardship is suffered by us too, his claim seems preposterous, just to milk the situation to his advantage by trying to emotionally pressurise us.( He has already accepted having 2 other businesses apart from the one he carries in our premises)
Kindly give your learned opinion on the matter. Thanks
shrikant chavan
27 October 2009 at 16:48
the suit for partition and injunction filed and same is decreed bythe lower court, the same decree has upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court.
In the said suit adoption deed was challenged, but it was registered so it was held legal and executable. Now i have filed second suit in respect of the same matter in which i have contested that the decree passed and upheld by the Apex court on the adoption deed and same is made by fraud.
now execution of the Apex court order is simulteniouly going on and the hearing of new case also.
so my question is that:
1. can i stay the execution if yes then how and pls refer any case law?
2. can i contest in the execution proceeding that the some property included in the decree is not joint family property?
3. can i offer payment for their share of the property whhich partted in favour of decree holder?
pls answer its very urgent.
Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 16:47
Respected Sir,
This is the case of SHARES CERTIFICATES.
Actually I have a 500 Share Certificates of Bharti Telecom Ltd., These are the un-registered shares. Recently I have applied for a duplicate share certificates. On that the said company has given a reply stating that the above said shares has been transferred to Custodian Account of Harshad Mehta Group and a case has been initiated by the Custodian and the same is pending before the Special Court, Mumabai.
As a matter of fact I never made any transfer or sold the said shares to any body and the said shares are still on my name and that I have been receiving the dividends etc., up to 2008. Now I don’t know why my said shares are involved in the scam of Harshad Mehta.
In this I am in need of a good Advocate/Lawyer/Attorney to defend on my behalf before the court of Special Court (Trail of offences relating to transactions in Securities Act) 1992) Mumbai.
In this I am straight away offering percentage of his fees and expenses after finalization of the case. Hence plz. suggest me a good advocate to defend on my behalf before the said court.
Thanks,
Subrahmanyam.
Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 15:45
Sir,
As i asked you earlier that i'm a male,hindu and got married a love marriage and she is also hindu and after three months of marriage she desserted me and married another person without taking divorce and before the 2nd marriage i got an injunction from the court restraining her from marrying any other and inspite of injunction she married by rejecting injunction orders and in which his father is also a parte and from then were dragging the case deliberately and saying that the photos and negatives of the said marriage are fabricated and created.how to prove this?????
And i have few more evidences like
1.She filed a case against me in p.s while desserting me (DVC) in which she specified that i'm her husband and case was not registered but a certified copy of G.D Entry and complaint copy are there with me how far court believes this ??
please tell me how to approach in my case ??
now she was not accepting notice from the court saying that surname was wrong.how to solve ..???
kindly do reply .......
Hemant Joshi
27 October 2009 at 14:34
sir,
pls advise me on the issue.
Is there any provision in Indian Trade Mark law just like US law regarding fraud on trade mark office? Can a registered proprietor held liable under Indian trade mark law for not using the mark within stipulated time (if yes, under what provision). Or if he concede that he is using the mark for all the discretion for which he is registered but actually using on one or some of the descriptions, then what would be consequences. what action would lie on him by Registrar of TM or by any third person.
Thanking you.
Anonymous
27 October 2009 at 13:54
Respected Sir/s
This is in respect of Wakf Board property issue:-
“A” is the Wakf Board and “B” is land purchaser. Actually “A” is having some properties and the same were notified in a Gazette Notification, which was published in the year 1989. Hence ”B” after careful enquiry, has purchased the lands in the year 2005 from the real owners of the lands, which were not notified by “A” in the said Gazette Notification. Now “A” has reacted and simply made a fresh Gazette Notification in the year 2008 and added the lands of “B” mentioning that due to mistake and oversight of “A” the lands are not notified in the earlier Gazette Notification and thus now claiming “B” properties are belonged to “A”. The case, where the matter is pending before the court, was also accepted earlier that what ever the properties purchased by “B” is not related to “A”, in another case.
The point is:-
1. Now “A” is not showing any documentary evidence to prove that the lands whatever purchased by “B”, are their properties except the Gazette Notifications.
2. How far the second Gazette Notification which was published in the year 2008 is maintainable, nearly after a period of 19 years?
3. Is there any possibility to pass a different/opinion/ order by the same court, now in the present cse?
Plz. Give ur opinion/comment./suggession.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
N.I.Act
Respected Seniors and Experts.
I am appearing for an accused in a trial under Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Complainant being a proprietorship firm is represented through its power of attorney holder.
In the cross examination the power of attorney holder has admitted that
(a) the instrument (Power of Attorney) was not filed along with the complaint. In otherwords while taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate has not seen the power of attorney.
(b) admittedly the name of the proprietor has not been disclosed in the complaint.
(c) He has admitted that he is not authorised under the power of attorney to undertake business activities. He has further admitted that he does not have the knowledge about the business transactions.
With the above admissions of the complainant should I file a petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding on the ground that continuance of the proceeding will be abuse of process of law.
Please Suggest.