Money Recovery Suit.

 we filing  and  contesting the money recovery suit against the creditors. recovery suit before the district court and high court on behalf of individuals, Companies and financial institution to recover there debt etc. we use to file the recovery suit on two modes.
(1) Simple recovery in case where there are no contract or agreement.

(2) the attorney firm used to file order xxxvii CPC for recovery of money /debt in the cases where there are any written contract, dishonoured  cheque ,bill of exchange,hundies and promissory notes, in which the parties/client seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the opposite party/defendant with or without interest, arising.
(3) also file on the basis of on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of debt other than a penalty.

(4) also used to file on the basis on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of debt or liquidated demand only.

The order xxxvii CPC is a very good and fast procedure for recovery of the debt. If there is a any written contract between the parties.

will and Probate Cases in India.

“Will” means the legal declaration of the intention of testator with respect to his property which he desired to be carried after effect of his death.
A will is valid disposition by a living person to take effect after his death, to fake effect after his death of his disposable property but in law ultima voluntas in script is used where lands or tenements are devised, and testamentum, when it concerneth chattels.

The word “will” is widely known and used and it has a well understood significance as meaning a disposition which is to take effect on the death of a person. “Will” has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Succession Act to mean the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect of his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.

Arbitration in India.

We take either of the arbitration cases voluntary or mandatory and can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration is, on the surface, similar to mediation. However, the principal distinction is that whereas a mediator will try to help the parties find a middle ground on which to compromise, the arbitrator remains totally removed from the settlement process and will only give a determination of liability and, if appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable.
– Negotiating in the best possible manner
– Conciliating the issues and dispute reasons
– Preparation and putting the disputed case before arbitrator
– Domestic and International Arbitration
– Enforcement of Awards

Foreign Divorce Decree in India.

Foreign Divorce Decree in India/International Divorce Decree
Section 13 of Civil Procedure Code 1908,
When Foreign  Divorce Judgments-decree is  not Conclusive.
A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of
1[India] in cases in which such law is applicable;
(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in 1[India]

Transfer of Divorce Petition in Supreme Court.

Transfer of Divorce Petition
The Supreme Court has the power to transfer the cases from one High Court to another and even from one District Court of a particular state to another District Court of the other state. In such transfer cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court transfer only those cases if they really lack appropriate territorial jurisdiction and those cases which were otherwise supposed to be filed under the transferred jurisdiction. Hon’ble Supreme Court often looks at the real ground / reason for such transfer.

Anti Suit Injunction in foreign Divorce proceeding in India.

ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION IN FOREIGN DIVORCE PROCEEDING IN INDIA
The Supreme Court in Neerja Saraph v. Jayant Saraph (1994) proposed feasibility of enacting a legislation to ensure that no marriage between an NRI and an Indian which has taken place in India may be annulled by a foreign Court. Earlier in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), the Apex Court spelt out guidelines for recognition of foreign Court matrimonial judgments to decide when Hindu marriages solemnized in India were said to be dissolved by unenforceable foreign decrees.

Principle Guide Line to grant Anti Suit Injunction
The landmark judgment laying down the principles which are to be taken into consideration by a Court at the time of passing an anti suit injunction is Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.,(2003) 4 SCC 341 and the principles laid down are reproduced hereinbelow :

“24. From the above discussion the following principles emerge:

(1) In exercising discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction the court must be satisfied of the following aspects:
(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court;
(b) if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; and
(c) the principle of comity — respect for the court in which the commencement or continuance of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained — must be borne in mind

Judicial Separation.

Judicial Separation
Section 10 of Hindu marriage Act,1955,

Judicial Separation:  
(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds

specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.

(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.