Anonymous
25 May 2021 at 22:29
Kindly advice me, whether there is any legal complication in providing a promissory note along with a signed blank cheque (as an additional security) for taking a loan of 25 lakh from a friend urgently.
The proposed draft is, as follows:
On demand, I promise to pay to Mr X, address or order the sum of Rs 25 lakh (Rupees --- only) with 9 per cent interest, from the date hereof until payment, for value received.
To facilitate the repayment of my debt on account of this instrument I am enclosing an undated but signed cheque no ----- of SBI, at ----, as well which would serve as an alternate security as well.
Dated this the day 21st day of May 2021
Sd/
Mathew Varghese
Address
Kindly advice me whether I need to make any change in the draft..
VINIT SUVANIA
25 May 2021 at 17:38
Sir,
I proceeded for deputation (ISTC) from my parent Department (one of the Major port of India) for 3 years. While my deputation period was about to end, one post (Executive Engineer) was advertised by one of the Major Port of India on Composite Method i.e. Promotion/Deputation/Absorption basis. In the application form they asked to tick the option that on what basis the applicant want to apply i.e. Deputation or Absorption. I filled the application by opting Absorption Basis and submitted the same to the Competent Authority for onward forwarding to the department who advertised the post. Subsequently, i have joined duty to my parent department after completion of my deputation tenure of 3 years. Same time my application was also forwarded to the other Major port including all the clearances i.e. Vigilance, Administration etc. Now after completion of everything, my department is telling that your application needs to be withdrawn as i am under cooling off period and i have to wait for 3 years for completion of cooling off period. My understanding is that the cooling off period is applicable for between 2 deputation not for direct recruitment or absorption basis recruitment. I need immediate help in this matter with some documentary evidences please. Also Please put some light on the above matter. I will be thankful to you.
Anonymous
25 May 2021 at 17:18
It has come to my notice that there is a reference to an authority called “Oath Commissioner” in many statutes.
The experts may kindly tell me who the oath commissioner is.
And if possible, which is the law that defines the authority “Oath Commissioner”?
Thank you all in advance.
KINGSHUK GHOSH
25 May 2021 at 16:44
Could not pay my dues from last 3 months and got a demand letter from bank. I had taken a CC loan from uco bank under MUDRA scheme 1 and half years back.. I really want to repay it, just due Covid I could not do it in time.. Just want some time to have some business.. What should I do now..
shyam lal
25 May 2021 at 16:31
Till date after the lapse of 16 years the legal heirs have not got their shares muted in the concerned revenue records of the Nagar Nigam.
As per the registered WILL(self acquired)
Query ,can government aquire the property ,second can a third party apply for title transfer and legal possession after full filling conditions /prerequisites
Anonymous
25 May 2021 at 16:28
Hi, My bankers has been lien my saving account, do to non payment of my loan, my question is, after my saving. / current account lien... will my Demat account can also lien by bank... as my Demat account is with local brokers like motilal Oswal
Anonymous
25 May 2021 at 14:21
One year back I have purchased a 3 BHK flat at Bangalore, I have not moved in to my new flat as still my interiors, painting are not done yet. 3 months back our residents welfare association was formed and they started monthly maintenance charges with fixed and variable charges, while fixed charges are for security house keeping, gardening AMC for lifts etc. divided on no of Flats.in the apartment & variable are for water ,genset diesel, STP Charged on Sft. basis of each flats
Our flats have no water meters as it was not provided by builder,
since march-2021 we started paying maintenance charges to the association, as I have not occupied my flat, and have requested the association not to include the water charges for my flat maintenance charges. but the association is insisting that the water charges cannot be waived off, as there is no water meter installed. so I need to pay the water charges,
Since the water charges are for the occupied flats who are using the water. They should share the water charges among themselves. how can I be charged the water charges which I have not consumed?
please advise is water charges are applicable on unoccupied flats since i am paying all other charges in the maintenance bill can water charges be excluded for my case.
Anonymous
25 May 2021 at 12:08
SIR, I HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS A CLERK IN PUNJAB NATONAL BANK. HOWEVER A CASE OF FALSE 498 A IS PENDING AGAINST ME FILED BY WIFE AND FIR WAS ALSO FILED FOR THE SAME. I HAVE NOT BEEN ARRESTED/ DETAINED FOR THE SAME. BUT TOOK ANTICIPATORY BAIL. PRESENTLY CHARGE SHEET IS FILED IN COURT BUT NO HEARING HAS BEEN HELD TILL NOW. IN APPLICATION THERE WAS A QUERY " WHETHER ANY PROSECUTION/ DETENTION/FINE/ CONVICTION/SENTENCE AGAINST YOU HAS BEEN AWARDED BY ANY COURT OF LAW FOR ANY OFFENCE". MY REPLY TO THE SAME WAS " NO" . . HOWEVER DOCUMENT VERIFICATION IS PENDING AND I WILL MENTION THE PENDING CASE STATUS DURING THE DOCUMENT VERIFICATION. MY QUERY IS ,DOES A CASE OF PENDING 498 A IS CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF JOB IN PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS ?
2. IF I AM SELECTED I WILL BE ON PROBATION FOR 06 MONTHS WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY POLICE VERIFICATION REPORT. SO WHAT ARE MY CHANCES FOR GETTING A SATISFACTORY REPORT FROM POLICE AND FURTHER CONFIRMATION OF BANK SERVICE ? .
H S Acharya
25 May 2021 at 11:46
Dear Legal Experts,
We are involved in road Transportation services and our sub contractor is holding one no empty 40 ft containers insisting us to pay all his balance 20 percent payments of approx 12 lakhs in advance wirhout submission of final bills and original LRs saying we may not pay bal on time . We have sent notice for both criminal and civil action but even after one month he is not responding and still say we should clear all payments. Meanwhile cont detention liability has touched 7 lakhs. Under such circumstance Can we file FIR to take delivery of empty container . Frt bal against that particular cont tptn is only 30000 but he wants us to clear all other bills which were not due when he stopped delivery of empty cont ..He does not respond to ph calls ..can anybody advise on the matter ?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Negotiable instrument act
Accused convicted in trial court. aquitted by sessions court in appeal. Whether second appeal lies to high court or revision. Clarify with judgements if any
We have filed appeal before Madras High Court, but it is returened mentioning justice Anand Venkatesh Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.03.2020
Dated : 28.05.2020
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN and
The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Criminal Appeal Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Criminal Revision Case Nos.494
& 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019
stating that appeal does not lie only revision .Hence this query i am asking for any supreme court judgements
I have got madhya pradesh and kerala high court judgements that only appeal should be filed against aquittal
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parasram Yadav vs Pravin Soni on 6 September, 2019
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
1
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
Criminal Revision No.303/2016
Indore, Dated 06.09.2019
Mr. Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the
applicant / complainant.
The applicant has preferred this criminal revision
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as
the Code) against order dated 08.12.2015 passed by
learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (MP) in
Criminal Appeal No.589/2015 and Criminal Appeal
No.615/2015, whereby judgment dated 28.07.2015
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore,
District Indore (MP) in Criminal Case No.7893/2010
has been set aside; and the respondent / accused was
convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the provisions of Section 378 (1) (b) of the Code, the State Government may, in any
case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or
appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, or an order of acquittal
passed by the Court of Session in revision. Section 378 (4) of the Code provides that if such an order
of acquittal is passed in any case, instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application
made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of
acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
In the present matter, the applicant / complainant has not filed any application under Section 378
(4) of the Code for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions
Court in appeal. Therefore, the present revision application is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue on the point of
maintainability of the present revision.
Matter be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge rcp
Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2785 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN Crl.A 131/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),
NORTH PARAVUR
JUDGMENT IN CC 872/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT- III, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------
PAULSON P.VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY
PAINADATH HOUSE, NAYATHODU KARA, ANGAMALY
NAYATHODU PO, PIN 683 572.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/:
------------------------
1. JAISON VARGHESE , S/O.C.J.VARGHESE
CHIRAMEL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.MVTRR 4/30/43/2389
MOOKOOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, PETTA JUNCTION
POONITHURA P.O.
2. M/S. WEST COAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JAISON VARGHESE
CHIRAMEL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.MVTRR 4/30/43/2389
MOOKOOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, PETTA JUNCTION
POONITHURA P.O., PIN-682 317.
3. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.ALI
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/41008301/ 1
ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.2785 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.872 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Aluva.
2. The accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of 5,00,000/-. Against the said
conviction and sentence, the accused filed appeal. As per judgment dated 4.8.2011 in Crl.A.No.131 of
2010, the appellate court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the said acquittal of the accused, the complainant before the trial
court has come up with this revision petition.
3. Heard.
4. In view of the provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 378 of the Code, the remedy of the
complainant in a complaint Crl.R.P. No.2785 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the trial court or the appellate court, is
to file appeal before the High Court after obtaining special leave. A Division Bench of this Court in
Omana Jose v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 504] held that the complainant in a case under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot challenge the order of acquittal before the Sessions
Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his remedy is only to
file an appeal to the High Court with special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In view of the above reason, this revision petition is not maintainable.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Needless to say that this
order will not take away the rights, if any, of the revision petitioner in seeking other remedies
available to him under law.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/04.11.2015
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/41008301/