J.Satyamurthy
14 October 2008 at 21:42
Sir,Facts of the case.Plaintiffs filed a suit for Suit for permanent injunction on open suit land,got contested interim injunction orderin their favour,agrieved by it defendants filed CMA,it was not seriously contested by the plaintiffs,the same is allowed.now my problem before the experts is that-Is still the suit is maintainable for commencement of trail- plz help me in regard with citations
Mohamed Ali
14 October 2008 at 21:36
A muslim partition suit was decreed in name of 6 Sons as defendants and 5 Daughters as plaintiffs, As per decree sons are entitle for 2/17th share and daughters are entitle for 1/17th share..
While filing FDP all the original defendants and plaintiffs were dead as this a very long pending suite,
Hence all their LR's had to be brought on record to represent them in FDP.
In one 3rd plaintiff's(Died in 1978) case who is a daughter,
She had 3 children 1 son(died in 1974) and 2 daughters, Son had predeceased her mother (hence he is not entitle for share as per Mohameddan law)..
But by mistake or purpose, The predeceased sons heirs were brought on record while filing of FDP.. As per LAW they are misjoinders, As their father( is a predeceased son of 3rd plaintiff) and is not entitle for any share in the 3rd plaintiff share of property.
FDP is still pending, As per decree my great grandmother is entitle for 1/17 share, while filing of FDP they have brought on record heirs of this predeceased son as LR's (misjoinders) along with their 2 aunts,
Since FDP is to allot 1/17th share for my Great grandmother in that only two daughters of Original 3rd plaintiff are entitle for share.
Point to be noted: These predeceased son's children were brought on record, while filing of FDP in 1984, where as preliminary decree was passed in 1970, since the original 3rd plaintiff had died(in 1978) and her son died in 1974.
In muslim law birth right is not recognised(where Hindu law recognises birth right), hence question who are the LR's entitle for share in 3rd plaintiff 1/17th share will come up only after her death, Since her son had predeceased her,
Only 2 daughters of 3rd plaintiff are entitle for share not childrens of predeceased son... this is our IA.
question: 1) FDP is still pending, Will the court executing decree will delete these misjoinders in FDP proceedings itself, as per Rule 10(2) and sec 47. or we have to file a seperate suite after FDP...
2) In the court in which FDP is pending, our IA to remove this misjoinders is pending from past 6 months, our IA is not yet been allowed or rejected, we are frustrated due to this delay,
can we file a writ petition in High court by passing this lower court to delete this misjoinders...
Rekha.....
14 October 2008 at 17:56
dear Sir/M'm
Good Evening
With all due respect sir V would like to inform u further that The Said Party has already sold his property, factory.
It is foolish question to u bt V need to ask u plz sir,
What V certainly need to know that the summon or warrant will be issued will, return without serving .is there any concrete way to be taken in this matter. How our client will receive the Rs.300000 without service of summons or warrant and also if party is not going to appear before the Hon'ble Court.
Thanx that u all r giving ur valuable time 4 us.
TS Bhatia
14 October 2008 at 12:41
What is the legal formality for making retrenchment of workers in factory ?
TS Bhatia
14 October 2008 at 12:37
what are services for which service tax is to be paid ?
SACHIN DHARMENDRAKUMAR JAIN
14 October 2008 at 11:52
Dear All,
I have joined Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) as an officer in Grade A (as a CA). I need to execute a bond of Rs. 1 lac if I leave the service of IOCL before the expiry of 3 years. I have left IOCL after working for 65 days.
The Co. has sent me a legal notice asking me to pay bond money otherwise, the will go for criminal/civil proceedings against me.
Please help me out whether employment bond are valid. (with supportive case laws, if any) Further, what should I do to avoid harrassment and unnecessary tention.
I would be very thankful if anyone from this community can help me out.
Regards,
Sachin D jain.
Senguttuvan K
14 October 2008 at 08:57
FBT is not a tax on Income
FBT is a tax on expenses
Is FBT applicable when some one is not claiming those expenses at all?
Two scenarios:
01. When a company's total income is exempted, the company can prepare memo of Income by disallowing the expenses subject to FBT and arrive at profit / loss. Suich profit is escalated to the extent of expenses subject to FBT. However, the profit is not taxable, since exempted.
02. When a company's Carry Forward Loss is huge and by not claming expenses subject to FBT the profit can be arrived.
Since this action doesn't have any impact on Book Profit, the status of MAT liability may not undergo any alteration.
Please clarify
Nishant Singla
14 October 2008 at 07:52
My father was elected as surpunch of Chhachhrauli village in 2001 by 375 winning votes. Since then one of punch of my village with jealous always try to tending down my father image in village by making false issues against my father. Recently he got the photocopies of our records of panchayat term from 2001 to 2006 and made a complaint to D.C. yamuna nagar, of course the I.O. find a clerical mistake and fined us with rs. 96301.Therefore we submit this money to Panchayat fund and then inform to I.O.. But due to jealous the complainant publish some defamatory news in newspaper by 5 days. Besides, this he (the complainant) was also a punch in our tenure and he had signed in the Proceeding Books of which he made complaint to D.C. So, i want to know , can i file a PIL against him in Punjab & haryana high court to restraint him from making further complaint because he has already signed the proceeding book for some issues of which he make complaint to D.C.. of our district.
From: Nishant Singla
Town-chhachhrauli
Distt- Yamuna Nagar
State- Haryana.
Ph no- 09354519053
email id-nishant_etp4@rediffmail.com
Mohamed Ali
13 October 2008 at 21:28
A muslim partition suit was decreed in name of 6 Sons as defendants and 5 Daughters as plaintiffs, As per decree sons are entitle for 2/17th share and daughters are entitle for 1/17th share..
While filing FDP all the original defendants and plaintiffs were dead as this a very long pending suite,
Hence all their LR's had to be brought on record to represent them in FDP.
In one 3rd plaintiff's case who is a daughter,
She had 3 children 1 son and 2 daughters, Son had predeceased her mother (hence he is not entitle for share as per Mohameddan law)..
But by mistake or purpose, The predeceased sons heirs were brought on record while filing of FDP.. As per LAW they are misjoinders, As their father(predeceased son of 3rd plaintiff) was not entitle for any share in the 3rd plaintiff Property.
FDP is still pending, As per decree my great grandmother is entitle for 1/17 share, while filing of FDP they have brought on record heirs of this predeceased son as LR's (misjoinders) along with their 2 aunts as the son(died in 1974) had predeceased, of original 3rd plaintiff, Since FDP is to allot 1/17th share for my Great grandmother in that only two daughters of Original 3rd plaintiff are entitle for share.
Point to be noted: These predeceased son's children were brought on record, while filing FDP in 1984, where as preliminary decree was passed in 1970, since the original 3rd plaintiff had died(1978) at the time,
In muslim law birth right is not recognised(where Hindu law recognises birth right), hence this issue of predeceased son will come up only after the death of Share holder ie 3rd plaintiff(1/17th share holder as per decree)
question: 1) FDP is still pending, Will the court executing decree will delete these misjoinders in FDP proceedings itself, as per Rule 10(2) and sec 47. or we have to file a seperate suite after FDP...
2) Since court in which FDP is pending is delaying on argument of our application, can we file a writ petition in High court to delete this misjoinders...
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
citations on maintainability of suit of permanent injunction
Sir,Facts of the case.Plaintiffs filed a suit for Suit for permanent injunction on open suit land,got contested interim injunction orderin their favour,agrieved by it defendants filed CMA,it was not seriously contested by the plaintiffs,the same is allowed.now my problem before the experts is that-Is still the suit is maintainable for commencement of trail- plz help me in regard with citations