Atish
24 September 2009 at 08:56
I was told as per muslim law afetr the age of 7 yaers the father always is the custodian of the son until proved that he is not capable of taking proper care and needs of the son.
In the past month the custody was given by court to the father for the holidays and the mother was denied after the son in court after being with the mother for one hour alone told the judge that he wants to be with the father and if mother wishes then should come home.
Because of uneasiness in boarding the son refused to stay and the father put him in a local school as day scholar.
The mother had left the house much befor e the divorce petition reached the father without anyones knowledge.
Both elder son of 22 years and younger son of 12 years are ready to state that they want to be with the father.
Can the court still force the custody to be given to the mother.
Would appreciate your kind answer at the earliest.
riven
Rishi Ahuja
24 September 2009 at 08:53
Respexted sir,
My wife has filed 498a/406/506 against me a year back and at the same time i got anticipated bail. I came to unofficially that change sheet has been filed in the court after months but i have issued any notice/summoned for that. Can i apporach Hight Court for squashing the said FIRor is there any time limit that i will be called by the hon'ble court. what action should i take in this case , shall i keep quite and wait for the further action.
Thanksriven
Rama mohan Acharya
24 September 2009 at 08:36
I understood that the Trade Union Amendment Act 1947 which had the provision for compulsory recognisation of trade union has not come into force. tThe trade Union havinf majority of the employees as their member got recognised by a PSU under the provisions of code of Discipline in Industries. As per the bye law of the daid Union the election of Office bearer is to be conducted once in two years. Once the election is conducted the new body of the Union used to register the same under the provision of UP Trade Union Act by submitting the Form J. Thereafter they used to request the management for recognistion and management used to recognise them for all bilateral discussion for a period of two years.What the management should do if on expiry of the said two years the Union is not conducting the Election.It is worth to mention that in the same Union there is another group which demand for election. It is a manufacturing unit and management certainly does not want any scene of Industrial Relations which have an effect on the production, Kindly enlight.riven
rajvinder singh
24 September 2009 at 08:27
sir ,accused driver killed 26 years old man while driving.FIR was registerd and now Challan (173 CRPC)hve been presented in court.
the brother of deceased is complainant he agrees to compromise and to get 2 lac from accused (my client)
now though the offence is noncompoundable does the FIR can be quashed at High Court u/s482 crpc.
pls provide my the authorities in suppport of it.
further sir pls tell me that in case compromise is made out does i have to mention the amount in the compromise which will be presented before high court pls guide me about the compromise deed how it will be drafted,only few guidlines so that i may develop itriven
Adinath@Avinash Patil
24 September 2009 at 08:08
Important case law In N.I.Act section 138.
Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench
Criminal Appeal no.239/2006 decided on 22/08/2008.
Dadasaheb Rawal co-op Bank of Dondaicha Ltd.
v/s
Ramesh Jawrilal Jain And others.
Negotiable Instrument Act 1881,section 138 &141-Whether HUF is covered u/s 141-Cheque issued by Firm of HUF dishonured-Plea that HUF not covered u/s 141-Held-The term "association of individuals" with include HUF business-it shall have to be construed as ejusdem generis-Along with other expression-Joint family business must be deemed as juristic person-Thry are covered u/s 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act in view of the explanation appended there to.riven
santhosh
24 September 2009 at 07:01
Hi all Pls guide me on the following
A Chennai based Medium sized listed company would like to accept resignation of its two PROMOTER DIRECTORS ,one of whom is presently having control of the company.
Is it required to obtain shareholders approval to ensure compliance with regulation 12 of the SEBI TAKEOVER code without the need to go in far public announcement/public offer etc before accepting the resignations of the Promoters/Directors ?
Only there are Two Promoter Directors on the Board.
Thnak You!
riven
PJANARDHANA REDDY
24 September 2009 at 05:14
AN IMPORTANT CASE SC CITATION ON VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER
THIRUVENGADA V NAVNEETHMAL
Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Thiruvengada Pillai
RESPONDENT:
Navaneethammal & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008
BENCH:
R. V. Raveendran & P.Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance - OS No.290/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.
Pleadings
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant
(Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an
agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and
received Rs.2,000/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by
receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000/- within three months.
Possession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said
agreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first
defendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first
defendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the
agreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard
to the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent
herein), who was her close relative. The said sale was neither valid nor
binding on him. On the said averments, he sought specific performance of
the agreement of sale, against the defendant, alleging that he was ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.
3. The defendants denied the allegation that the first defendant had
executed an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 in favour of the plaintiff or
that she had delivered possession of the suit property to him. They
contended that plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the
help of his henchmen to defraud the defendants. They claimed that the first
defendant had executed a valid sale deed dated 11.2.1980 in favour of the
second defendant and had delivered possession of the suit property to her;
and that the second defendant had put up a hut in the schedule property and
was actually residing therein. The second defendant raised an additional
contention that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore, the
sale in her favour was valid.
4. During the pendency of the suit first defendant died, and the third
defendant (second respondent herein) was impleaded as her legal
representative, who adopted the written statement of the second defendant.
Issues and the Judgment
5. On the said pleadings, three issues were framed by the trial court : (i)
whether the agreement put forth by the plaintiff was true or concocted ? (ii)
whether the second defendant had purchased the suit property for valid
consideration ? and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of
specific performance ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the
scribe of the agreement (Ramaswami Pillai) as PW-2 and an attesting
witness to the sale agreement (Venkatesha Pillai) as PW-3. The agreement
of sale was exhibited as Ex. A-1. The notice and reply were marked as Ex.
A2 and A4. The second defendant, (purchaser of the site), gave evidence as
DW-1 and the third defendant, who was also a witness to the sale deed dated
11.2.1980, was examined as DW-2. The sale deed dated 11.2.1980 executed
by first defendant in favour of second defendant was marked as Ex.B2 and
previous title deed was exhibited as Ex. B4. The plaintiff and his witnesses
gave evidence that the sale agreement was duly executed by first defendant
in favour of plaintiff. The defendants gave evidence about the sale in favour
of second defendant and denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour
of plaintiff.
6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984. It heriven
Dr.Anurag Vimal
24 September 2009 at 04:49
Dear lawyer,
my friend`s official father looked after him but he died many years back and the biological father or mother has not looked after him .biological father is married to somebody else and has 2 legal sons.
now he avoids my friend, and does not even talk.
Is there a law in india wherein a case can be put in the courts for some right INCLUDING property rights in case of illegitimate son who is also mentally disturbed and has even left medical career,started drinking,has depression and is frustated.riven
TANMOY
24 September 2009 at 02:20
Hi, Here is the problem for our experts-
1. A lady had taken a home as tenant and living there for last two years and handed over her ornaments to the landlord who had issued a cheque of 12 lac rs for the purpose of purchasing those ornaments. The cheque was bounced and the lady issued a notice of demand under 138 N.I. act.The landlord told the lady to vacate the house. The lady refused and went ahead with securing an interim INJUNCTION from the court of Civil Judge and a complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class for cheque bounce.
2. The husband of that lady had issued a cheque of Rs. 1 lac to the landlord for paying rent arrears but as the landlord took a loan of Rs. Six Lac from the husband of that lady, the landlord issued a cheque of Rs. five lac to the husband of that lady AFTER DEDUCTING THE HOUSE RENT. The cheque which was issued by the husband, 1 lac rs, was bounced as well as the cheque which was issued by the landlord, 5 lac rs, was also bounced. And ofcourse, a complaint case under 138 N.I act is pending against the landlord.
NO AGREEMENT IS IN EXISTENCE IN BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND TENANT REGARDING RENT AGREEMENT, PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS, PAYING OF ARREAR AND THE HANDLOAN.
3. Now, the landlord is claiming before the Civil Judge that the lady is not paying rent for last two years and the cheque of 1 lac rs towards house rent was bounced and therefore, the injunction should be vacated.
IN OUR POSSESSION-
1. A CHEQUE OF 12 LAC AGAINST ORNAMENT-PURCHASHE, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND GOT BOUNCED.
2. A CHEQUE OF 5 LAC TOWARDS HANDLOAN.
PLEASE MIND NO AGREEMENT IS THERE EXCEPT CHEQUES.
THEY HAVE A CHEQUE OF 1 LAC RS WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE HUSBAND OF THAT LADY AND WHICH GOT BOUNCED.
What plea could be taken in Court so that the Interim Injunction will not be vacated and perpetual injunction could be obtained?
The family does not want to stay in that home but not want to vacate it until and unless the money will be recovered.riven
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
iN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL COMPLAINT U/SW 200 AND 156(3)
Respected sir,
I have filed a criminal complaint crpc u/s 200 and 156 (3) in DP3 and i hope that FIR will be order by the hon'ble court as earlier the order could not be passed because of the incomplete ATR submitted by the IO. Now the IO has submitted the ATR whicvh is factully incorrect and biased.
I have submitted all the evidences in the hon'ble court to be put up on record. The Hon'ble acourt accepted my documents for the records and order to be pronouced on 03-10-2009. In case, if i am not satisfied with the order , can i approach the hight court for this or let it be continuted in u/s 200.
Secondly, IO who has submitted a false ,febricated and baised report in the court which hurt me and for that i have filed my griviences to the DCP, Vigilance for that and copy of the same is also submitted to Jt. CP and Commossioner of Police Delhi. Can i appraoch DCP vigilance for this, as the case is still penbding in the Honourable court.
Thanksriven