Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review.
Sale! 
AN APPEAL BEFORE DRAT CHALLENGING THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE DRT
₹700 (30% OFF)
This is a precedent of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Challenging the interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debt due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Recommended based on your search
- Sale!
GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO BE FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALONGWITH FORM NO. 36 [Rule 47(1)] UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the Income Tax Act has passed an Order against the Assessee. Now this needs to be challenged further. This is the precedent of Grounds of Appeal to be filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with Form No.36 [Rule 47(1)] under Section 253 The Income Tax Act against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)
₹700 (30% OFF) Add to Cart - Sale!
AN APPLICATION BY A THIRD PARTY TO DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL FOR VACATING AN INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED AGAINST HIS PROPERTY FOR THE DEBT OF THE BORROWER
This is a precedent of an Application by a third party to Debt Recovery Tribunal for vacating an injunction order passed against his property for recovery of Debt of Borrowers/Guarantors.
₹525 (30% OFF) Add to Cart - Sale!
REVIEW PETITION TO BE FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
This is the precedent of Review Petition to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court for reviewing its own order and judgment. The Review Petition can be filed only if the grounds for Review are available.
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
A SECURITISATION APPEAL TO DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002.
The Bank/Financial Institution has issued a notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and threatening to take actions under the same. A Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the said Act was filed by the Borrower before Debt Recovery Tribunal which is rejected. This is a precedent of an appeal u/s 18 of the said Act to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal challenging the said Order of Debt Recovery Tribunal.
₹525 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
THE DECREE/ JUDGMENT PASSED BY ANY APPELLATE CIVIL COURT IN THE FIRST APPEAL WHICH COURT IS SUBORDINATE TO HIGH COURT CAN BE CHALLENGED BY WAY OF A SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IF THE CASE INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW (SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)
"The decree/ judgment passed by any appellate Civil Court in the first appeal which court is sub-ordinate to High Court can be challenged by way of a second appeal before the High Court provided the case involves a substantial question of law. This is a precedent of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY APPELLATE BENCH OF SMALL CAUSES COURT
This is a precedent of Revision Petition to the Hon’ble High Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908.A revision to High Court is available only in those cases and against such orders where no appeal lies and revisional jurisdiction can be exercised suo moto in certain cases including on the ground of jurisdiction error.
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
EVICTION SUIT BEFORE THE SMALL CAUSES COURT OR THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON THE GROUND THAT – (A) THE TENANT HAS BEEN GUILTY OF CONDUCT WHICH IS A NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO THE ADJOINING OR NEIGHBOURING OCCUPIER UNDER SECTION 16(1)(c) OF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999; AND {B} THE PREMISES ARE REASONABLY AND BONA FIDE REQUIRED BY THE LANDLORD UNDER SECTION 16(1)(g) OF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT 1999
This is a precedent of an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court or the Court of Civil judge for recovery of possession on the ground that – (a) The Tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance of annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupier under Section 16(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; and (b) The premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the Landlord for occupation by himself under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
FIRST APPEAL CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LOWER CIVIL COURT BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT
This is a precedent of First Appeal to High Court. First Appeal challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Lower Civil Court before the Superior Court. An aggrieved party to any decree, which was passed by a Court while exercising its original jurisdiction, is conferred with at least one right to appeal to a higher authority designated for this purpose, unless the provisions of any statute make an exception for it.
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
SUIT BEFORE THE SMALL CAUSES COURT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TENANT HAS NOT USED THE PREMISES FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX MONTHS UNDER SECTION 16(1)(n) OF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999
This is a precedent of an eviction suit to be filed before the Small Causes Court or before the court of civil judge for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises on the ground that the Tenant has not used the said premises for a continuous period of more than six months as contemplated under section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
₹700 (30% OFF) Add to Cart - Sale!
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 58 (4) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 READ WITH RULE 70 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016 AGAINST THE COMPANY’S REFUSAL TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES
The equity shares in a Public Limited Company is standing in the name of the deceased. The Petitioner is legally entitled to the same. However, the Company has refused to transfer the said shares in favour of the Petitioner without sufficient cause. This is a standard precedent of Appeal under Section 58(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 70 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 against the Company’s refusal to transfer the said shares.
₹525 (30% OFF) Add to Cart - Sale!
APPEAL BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT U/S. 374(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION BY MAGISTRATE’S COURT
The person is convicted by the Learned Magistrate’s Court. The Appeal is to be preferred. This is the precedent of an Appeal before the Sessions Court u/s. 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of Conviction by Magistrate’s Court.
₹700 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
SUMMARY SUIT BASED ON DISHONOURED CHEQUES
This is a precedent of Summary Suit to be filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for recovery of the amount based on the dishonoured cheques.
₹350 (30% OFF) Add to Cart
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.