Articles
| Heading | Courtesy | Date |
|---|---|---|
| No Articles |
Akhil Bhasin (13 Years Exp)
Dowry harassment (Show More)
Judicial Complex Kurukshetra , Kurukshetra
View Answers by this Lawyer (5)
Profile Views : 18454
News : 0 Articles : 0
Contact Details
Law Firm Name : Akhil Bhasin
Country : India
City : Kurukshetra
Area : Judicial Complex Kurukshetra
News
| Heading | Courtesy | Date |
|---|---|---|
| No News |
Practicing Since : 2011
Qualification : L.L.B.
About
| Enrolment No | Enrolment State | Enrolment BAR |
|---|---|---|
| P/1360/2011 | Haryana | Kurukshetra |
Civil
Arbitration & ADR
Corporate & Regulatory
Consumer,Product&Service Liability
Contract & Drafting
Criminal Law
Family & Divorce
High Courts (India)
IP, Trademark & Copyright
Employment, Labor & Service
Motor Vehicles
Banking & Finance
Environmental
Medical, Pharma & Healthcare
Insurance
Languages
Subject : legal binding document
Question : Does a unregistered MoU of . Family settlement in respect to undivided property,requires registration to be called a binding legal document among the signatories?
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : Yes in case of family settlement registration is mandatory, even otherwise to avoid future issues it's advisable to go for registration
Subject : Can NI 138 and IPC 420 be filed together?
Question : I have filed NI 138. The respondent absconded because he cheated another 14 persons like me and also filed IP case. After 5 months of NI 138 filed against him, then I moved to SP office and put FIR against him by IPC 406 and 420. My question is Can NI 138 and IPC 420 be filed together?
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : Yes both ur cases 138 ni act and 420 etc. IPC can go parallel.
Subject : Can NI 138 and IPC 420 be filed together?
Question : I have filed NI 138. The respondent absconded because he cheated another 14 persons like me and also filed IP case. After 5 months of NI 138 filed against him, then I moved to SP office and put FIR against him by IPC 406 and 420. My question is Can NI 138 and IPC 420 be filed together?
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : Yes both ur cases 138 ni act and 420 etc. IPC can go parallel.
Subject : EITHER THE SHOP MAY GOT VACATE OR MAY GO IN THE CUSTODY OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
Question : A Shop was allotted before 20-22 years to the undersigned by Municipal Committee, Haryana on monthly depositing of Rs. 600/= per month, which at present is Rs.800/= per month. The Shop has been issued in my name. Before 8-10 years, on faith / trust of any person, the same shop was given by the undersigned to that person for using the same for 10-12 months but that person[ to whom the shop was given by the undersigned] started depositing monthly amount of Rs. 800/= directly in the Municipal committee, HOWEVER THE SLIPS ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE ARE STILL IN MY NAME, TO WHOM THAT FELLOW IS COLLECTING FROM THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE. Secondly, that person is not vacanting my shop. ---- Two important points to note in this case is that on the advice of any fellow when I asked Municipal Committee to give the terms & conditions on which the shop was granted to the undersigned with the help of RTI, then Municipal Committee confessed by given in writing [ in the court of State Commission, Chandigarh] that they have no idea of rules / regulations of allotting this shop to the undersigned. ---Last year a legal councel sent a notice to the person keeping the shop at present from my side asking him that the said shop was given to him in emergency for 6-8 months use only & asked him to vacate the shop. NOW ALMOST EVERY FELLOW SAYS THAT THE THE WRONG NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED BY MY LEGAL COUNCEL BEFORE ONE YEAR. --- Sir, On what basis my this above shop can be vacate. There can be any type of mishappening in this shop as it is in my name. So, I want whether the shop may got vacate or if not possible of vacate, then the same may go into the custody of Municipal Commiitee. I AM READY TO ENGAGE ANY LEGAL COUNCEL WHO WITH GUARNTEE AN HELP ME IN EITHER VACATING OF THE SHOP OR MAKING THE SAME IN CUSTODY OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : Ask municipal committee to file the case on the basis of sub letting, only landlord can claim the premises.
Subject : Whether sitting of one extra person in the truck comes under violation of limitations as to use
Question : Dear Sir, My truck was covered under comprehensive policy with Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & this truck met with accident last year. Apart from Driver & Cleaner[helper], one more person was in the truck i.e total three persons were in the truck which was mentioned in the police report. Also the cleaner / helper died in this accident. Sir, My OD Claim has been repudiated by saying that one extra person was travelling in the truck & this is the violation of ‘ LIMITATIONS AS TO USE’. Sir, As such I want to know whether sitting of one more person comes under the [violation of limitations as to use] & whether the decision taken by insurer is right or wrong. Regards, Suresh Kumar , Rohtak[ Haryana]
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : No they can't dismiss ur claim. File a case before consumer forum. U will get ur claim with interest
Subject : Whether sitting of one extra person in the truck comes under violation of limitations as to use
Question : Dear Sir, My truck was covered under comprehensive policy with Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & this truck met with accident last year. Apart from Driver & Cleaner[helper], one more person was in the truck i.e total three persons were in the truck which was mentioned in the police report. Also the cleaner / helper died in this accident. Sir, My OD Claim has been repudiated by saying that one extra person was travelling in the truck & this is the violation of ‘ LIMITATIONS AS TO USE’. Sir, As such I want to know whether sitting of one more person comes under the [violation of limitations as to use] & whether the decision taken by insurer is right or wrong. Regards, Suresh Kumar , Rohtak[ Haryana]
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : No they can't dismiss ur claim. File a case before consumer forum. U will get ur claim with interest
Subject : Whether sitting of one extra person in the truck comes under violation of limitations as to use
Question : Dear Sir, My truck was covered under comprehensive policy with Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & this truck met with accident last year. Apart from Driver & Cleaner[helper], one more person was in the truck i.e total three persons were in the truck which was mentioned in the police report. Also the cleaner / helper died in this accident. Sir, My OD Claim has been repudiated by saying that one extra person was travelling in the truck & this is the violation of ‘ LIMITATIONS AS TO USE’. Sir, As such I want to know whether sitting of one more person comes under the [violation of limitations as to use] & whether the decision taken by insurer is right or wrong. Regards, Suresh Kumar , Rohtak[ Haryana]
Answer by Akhil Bhasin : No they can't dismiss ur claim. File a case before consumer forum. U will get ur claim with interest
