RI in cheque bounce
case CHANDIGARH The complainant is the Director of Amar Alloys, Mr Ashok Kumar, who complained that the accused had bought CTD bars of Rs 1.54 lakh from the company. The accused had retuned Rs 80,000 but failed to return the rest of the amount. The accused had further given money worth Rs 72,000 but three cheques for Rs 32,000 were bounced. Bail dismissed The complainant, Mr Navneet Soni and Mr K.K Soni, partners of Karan Enviro Control, New Delhi, had complained that the accused had withdrawn Rs 15 lakh from their account through forge signature. The Magistrate observed that the allegations against the accused were serious of nature, therefore, he could not be granted anticipatory bail. Remand extended It was alleged that they had murdered Narinder Singh at Mauli Jagran. The victim was a resident of Rajiv Colony, Panchkula. |
Lawyers given eviction
notices CHANDIGARH Sources said, as a first step, eviction notices had been issued to lawyers who were in alleged unauthorised occupation of chambers. The formula of allotment has been shown to a team of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for acceptance. The Deputy Commissioner, Mr M. Ramsekhar, when contacted, confirmed the eviction notices issued to lawyers who were not authorised to occupy the chambers. Since 1986 when the chambers were first allotted in some cases, the principal allottee and the two co-allottees had pledged their rights to some others lawyers on their own. In some cases, it has been found that there was only one lawyer per chamber meant for three lawyers. In some cases, fathers had handed down their chambers to their sons even if the latter was not eligible.
Under the new policy, unoccupied chambers would be allotted through a draw of lots conducted among the 300 eligible applicants. Where one or two seats were vacant in the chambers, the present occupants would be asked for their preference to choose their fellow lawyers in the chambers. |
Two get bonus shares PANCHKULA In their complaint, it was alleged that they bought 100 shares for Rs 754 each, and sent these for transfer in December 1994, before the exbonus closure date. It was added that Indian Bank sold these before the closing date and all rights accruing after October 1994 were of the complainants. The two informed that the shares were sent to CAMS Computer Age which transferred shares for Wockhdart Limited. They alleged that the shares were returned to them with minor objections. The corrected shares were sent back. Though corrected shares in the name of the complainants came back, the bonus shares were wrongly transferred in the name of the bank. They alleged that due to deficiency in service, the bonus share had not been issued to him. Upon notice, the opposite parties said that the company recognised only complete transfer deeds. In the case in question, these were defective and objection memo was issued from Chennai. It was stated that the complainants were not entitled to receive bonus shares. The Bench observed that there was no reason to withhold the bonus share of the complainant and that such a move amounted to deficiency of service.
|
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 120 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |