Gaurav Pandya
27 June 2009 at 03:47
For the accused side in M. P.'s District Court @ Jabua - The Stage is Recall of Bank officer.
(1) Complainant has not filed complain with cheque return stemps on cheques ?
After when they give the original check they get the stemps on cheques.
Is this point useful ?
(2) The cheques were of Security Deposit.
Than in N. I. Act it is useful to accused that the cheques were for the security deposits not for payment ?
(3) In core banking,
(A) there are not charges cut from account for cheques return ?
(B) The cheques were return after 4 days in local clearing and even though there are not stamps on cheque ? Is this complain maintanable ?
Is this point useful ?
(4) What will happen, is it possible, If the accuse dont want to go with more dates & proceedings and he is ready to pay the amount of cheques as compromise.
What will be thinking of the court ?
Please give me the detailed replies, and if possible than with citations...
Gaurav Pandya
27 June 2009 at 03:46
For the accused side in M. P.'s District Court @ Jabua - The Stage is Recall of Bank officer.
(1) Complainant has not filed complain with cheque return stemps on cheques ?
After when they give the original check they get the stemps on cheques.
Is this point useful ?
(2) The cheques were of Security Deposit.
Than in N. I. Act it is useful to accused that the cheques were for the security deposits not for payment ?
(3) In core banking,
(A) there are not charges cut from account for cheques return ?
(B) The cheques were return after 4 days in local clearing and even though there are not stamps on cheque ? Is this complain maintanable ?
Is this point useful ?
(4) What will happen, is it possible, If the accuse dont want to go with more dates & proceedings and he is ready to pay the amount of cheques as compromise.
What will be thinking of the court ?
Please give me the detailed replies, and if possible than with citations...
Gaurav Pandya
27 June 2009 at 03:45
For the accused side in M. P.'s District Court @ Jabua - The Stage is Recall of Bank officer.
(1) Complainant has not filed complain with cheque return stemps on cheques ?
After when they give the original check they get the stemps on cheques.
Is this point useful ?
(2) The cheques were of Security Deposit.
Than in N. I. Act it is useful to accused that the cheques were for the security deposits not for payment ?
(3) In core banking,
(A) there are not charges cut from account for cheques return ?
(B) The cheques were return after 4 days in local clearing and even though there are not stamps on cheque ? Is this complain maintanable ?
Is this point useful ?
(4) What will happen, is it possible, If the accuse dont want to go with more dates & proceedings and he is ready to pay the amount of cheques as compromise.
What will be thinking of the court ?
Please give me the detailed replies, and if possible than with citations...
Gaurav Pandya
27 June 2009 at 03:43
For the accused side in M. P.'s District Court @ Jabua - The Stage is Recall of Bank officer.
(1) Complainant has not filed complain with cheque return stemps on cheques ?
After when they give the original check they get the stemps on cheques.
Is this point useful ?
(2) The cheques were of Security Deposit.
Than in N. I. Act it is useful to accused that the cheques were for the security deposits not for payment ?
(3) In core banking,
(A) there are not charges cut from account for cheques return ?
(B) The cheques were return after 4 days in local clearing and even though there are not stamps on cheque ? Is this complain maintanable ?
Is this point useful ?
(4) What will happen, is it possible, If the accuse dont want to go with more dates & proceedings and he is ready to pay the amount of cheques as compromise.
What will be thinking of the court ?
Please give me the detailed replies, and if possible than with citations...
gaurav_the_great@hotmail.com
Dakshina Murthy
27 June 2009 at 03:01
There are two codicil's dated in the same year 1994 one in the month of june with only one witness and another in the month of august also with only one witness(both fabricated) and both codicil's have different witnesses, How can this be proved as a fake codicil. Since the content in the original WILL deed registered in 1992 was not at all mentioned in both the cocicil's. Also it states that the executor is bequeathing(FRESH) the codicil, How is this possible.????
Is there any sitation of supreme court which states that any codicil executed needs to be probated in the court of law within 12 years of execution.???
PLEASE ADVISE?????
Amarjeet yadav
26 June 2009 at 22:56
Here i have transferred my share of land in favour of my sons in 1995 and a court decree was obtained in this regard now the situation is this that my sons are not taking care of mine so i want my part of land back plz guide me can this decree be set-aside?
surender
26 June 2009 at 19:27
Dear friends,
I would like to seek your valuable advice on following matter:-
My father & mother were attacked with iron rods & lathis when they tried to rescue the neibour's 20 year son from a planned attack by other neighbours to kill him.My father & mother only tried to rescue him & not retaliated, but suffered severe injuries on head & a fracture on my father's hand. They were immediately hospitalised & with god's grace their life is now out of danger after stayiny 03 days in ICU. Based on medical report, a charge sheet has been filed against the attachers under section 307. But the police has not arrested them even when 12 days have passed. From sources, we come to know that the policeman has been bribed with RS. 01 Lakh for not arresting them. I request all members to provide me the legal advice and my future course of action. Looking forward for a valuable advice...Surender
Adv. Deepak
26 June 2009 at 17:28
Resp. Sirs, I want to prove the adultery of wife with the third person. How can it be proved with direct or circumstantial evidence? Could you please guide me? Regards.
A Sunder Rajan
26 June 2009 at 16:50
We are a NFP company looking for top legal firms in Hyderabad having expertise in dealing with Not For Profit Organisations(NFP)
A. Sunder Rajan
Head Infrastructure And Resources
George Institute for International Health - India
839C, Road No. 44A, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad – 500033, India
Telephone +91 40 2355 8091
Facsimile +91 40 2354 1980
Email: srajan@george.org.in
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Final decree proceedings
A muslim partition suite is preliminary decreed in the year 1954, the final decree proceedings is still pending and ajouned yasterday for next month, which had started in the year 1986,
All the decree holders and even many of their children and grandchildren have died, many of the legal heirs of decree holders have to brought on record and some of the legal heirs of a decree holder(plaintiff) who are not entitle for share as per Mohammedan law have wrongly been added as legal heirs of one plaintiff t the start of final decree proceedings.
Question: Now the Judge is suddenly taken a U turn and is telling, all of the legal heirs write a memo stating that pass on the final decree as per preliminary decree dated 1954 and he will passed an order, ignoring almost 80 Interlocutary application pending from the year 1986 in the pending final decree proceedings, in which some application to delete some wrongly added legal heirs of one of the plaintiff is also their and some subsequent purchaser after decree have been added as additional defendants and rest many of the application is to bring legal heirs of decree holders on record. our advocate questioned the judge he cannot pass an order based on preliminary decree as all of the decree holders have long died now but the judge is not willing to listen our advocate, our advocate said final decree proceedings is nothing but continuation of original suite and anything can be done here, or advocate further said we have an Interlocutory application pending in this FDP to delete some legal heirs of one plaintiff who are not entitle for share and have been wrongly made as parties, but the judge is saying that u can take care of that after the share is allotted to that plaintiff as per decree,but that plaintiff has died in 1979 and even her children except one daughter have died. But the judge is not understanding the things, Please advice how to proceed as we want the legal heirs of plaintiff who are not entitle for share must be removed from record in the pending final decree proceedings itself, further the judge is telling u can raise your concern in execution after final decree is passed which is wrong, can we go to high court on that memo which judge is taking to pass final decree based on preliminary decree and stop the judge from doing so, or what alternatives are there for us.