Anonymous
09 January 2017 at 16:39
My father owes three lakhs to a catering contractor. The contractor
pressed and received a blank undated cheque from my father. Now he has received summon under section 138. My father doesn't have intention of cheating the contract but he is unable to arrange for funds now. Kindly guide how to proceed
akrity
09 January 2017 at 15:32
Sir,
I am working with a Singapore based company since 3 year,they decided to pay me approximately 60,000/ per month now since 2 years they pay me 20,000/ per month.now as I want to switch job what I can do to reclaim my arrear salary.please give suggestions m really worried.
pushpakrishna
09 January 2017 at 15:14
a company registerd under companies act given a cheque signed by managing director and bounced.the complaint filed a case u/s 138 of ni act.making the company and the managing director as an accused.
but the managing director send a person authorising him as on his behalf.
is it correct?
kindkly give the suitable answer in this regard .
thanq very much in advancs dear experts.
Ayan
09 January 2017 at 14:39
An old person(82 years) has got a Land from Inherited.
He has "PARCHA" document from B.L. & L.R.O. Office
in his name ,Municipality tax is paid in his name.
But he have no Sale Deed/Dalil/regisration paper.
1)This property can be sell or gift to her daughter ?
2)Is "PARCHA" and Municipality tax paper is enough
to claim as land lord?
D G Raghunath
09 January 2017 at 10:43
A person written abjection filed to the court that I am fear person in Harihar city. In this case I am third person. Till today on me have no any cases anywhere in India. I hurt a lot by seeing that statement. If I lodge a criminal 499, 500, 501 cases on him, can I success in this case ?
p phipson
09 January 2017 at 10:14
Is a Public Trust in Mumbai allowed to serve alcohol drinks( and get an Excise permit) from Trust funds to entertain their members as a way to win over their votes?
Likewise highly subsidized luncheon and dinner parties?
The Trust has 1000 voting members but only about 200 benefit from these "parties" under guise that it is to build up comoradie with members??
swapan kr. mukhopadhyay
09 January 2017 at 09:46
retired on 31.01.2010. gratuity amount Rs 1000000/ received on jul/aug 2010.during assessment/scrutiny of AY 2010-11 gratuity amount was not considered as the same was not received during AY 2010-11.But during assessment/scrutiny of AY 2011-12 an amount of Rs 650000/(Rs1000000/-Rs350000/) is being added to income.
my quarry is that as Rs650000/ was not added during AY 2010-11 as the gratuity was not received then, why it should be added during AY 2011-12 since exemption limit was enhanced from 24.05.2010 by amending the gratuity act from Rs 350000/ to 1000000/.should it not be considered on receipt basis also during 2011-12?
Anonymous
08 January 2017 at 22:21
Sir
My parents have gross annual income of less than rs 6 lakh as per their latest income tax returns
But we also have separate HUF.
Do we take income of parents only or of the huf also??
Manikanta
08 January 2017 at 21:12
Dear sir,
If an WILL is not registered,if the other party was producing will which may be undergone forgery, how to proceed legally
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Consent term
Smt.Ramrati Radheshyam Gupta - PLAINTIFF versus
1. Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta,
2. Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta,
3. Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta,
4. Kamla Ramdeo Gupta,
5. Devendra Radheshyam Gupta,
6. Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta -DEFENDANTS.
CONSENT TERMS
1. The Defendants waive service of Writ of Summons.
2. Defendants admit that the properties described in Ex ‘A’ to the plaint were the property of Hindu Undivided Family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants.
3. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, admits that under an Agreement of Family Settlement dated 1.10.1998 at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint, defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta received from the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta a sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) by cheque no. 434494 dated 25-1-1999 and another sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) by cheque no. 434495 dated 2-2-1999 drawn on Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sakinaka, Mumbai branch totaling to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in full and final payments of the value of their share in the property mentioned at Ex ‘A’ to the plaint and in consideration therof they have relinquished, released and surrendered all their right Title and interest therein in favour of the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta. Defendants admit the correctness of the contents of the said Agreement of Family Settlement at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint. Defendants further admit that they have duly signed the said Agreement at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint after being read over the same to them in Hindi language. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, admits that they have now no right title and interest of any nature whatsoever in the said property described in Ex ‘A’ to the Plaint.
4. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, agree and undertake that they will neither interfere with the management of the said property by the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta as exclusive owner thereof, nor shall they interfere in getting the said property transferred in the name of plaintiff And defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta.
5. Decree in terms of Consent Terms.
6. No order as to cost.
CONSENT TERMS WERE MADE AND IT BECOMES DECREE IN HIGH COURT.
If Plaintiff Expired and Defendant No.1 is also expired and the given Rights were not Executed in 17 years by the Rights holder i.e. Defendant No. 5 & 6.
Now my Query is, IF RIGHTS WERE NOT EXECUTED FOR 17 YEARS, CAN IT IS POSSIBLE BY DEFENDANTS NO. 5 & 6 TO EXECUTE IT NOW?