Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review.
- You can't purchase more than 5 items in a day.
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!
AN APPLICATION TO CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE OR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BY BANKS/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/ SECURED CREDITOR U/S. 14 OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING POSSESSION/FORCIBLE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE SECURED ASSET
This is a precedent of an Application to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate by Banks/Financial Institutions/Secured Creditor u/s. 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for the purpose of taking possession/forcible possession or control of the Secured Asset. The Bank/Financial Institution/ Secured Creditor has become entitled to the possession of the Secured Asset under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, however, the Borrower is not co-operating.
₹525 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd 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!
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!
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!
RERA – APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF MEMBER/ADJUDICATING OFFICER
This is a precedent of an Appeal to be filed before The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal against the Order of member/adjudicating officer under the provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
₹525 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
AN APPLICATION TO THE RECOVERY OFFICER OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL FOR RAISING THE ATTACHMENT LEVIED ON THIRD PARTY’S PROPERTY
This is a precedent of an Application to the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal for raising the attachment levied on Third Party’s property.
₹525 (30% OFF) Add to Cart - Sale!
APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 READ WITH THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES 2016
There is a delay in filing an Appeal before NCLT for transferring the shares in favour of the Appellant. This is the standard precedent of an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016.
₹350 (30% OFF) Add 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!
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15-T OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992, BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SAT) CHALLENGING THE ORDER (PENALTIES AND ADJUDICATION) OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA PASSED UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992
This is a precedent of an appeal under section 15-T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) challenging the order (Penalties and Adjudication) of Securities and Exchange Board of India passed under Chapter via of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
₹525 (30% OFF) Preview HereAdd to Cart - Sale!
AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER STATEMENT TO THE NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRADE MARK
This is the precedent of an Affidavit of Evidence in support of the Counter Statement (by the Applicant) to the Notice of Opposition filed under Trade Marks Act, 1999 opposing the registration of the Trade Mark advertised in Trade Journal.
₹420 (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!
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
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.