Latest news with #GeneralPowerofAttorney
IOL News
3 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Retired judge slams Nedbank for failing elderly and low-income clients
Retired Judge Dhaya Pillay shares her frustrating experiences with Nedbank's customer service, Image: Karen Sandison / Independent Newspapers Retired High Court Judge Dhaya Pillay has slammed Nedbank for seemingly fostering a service culture that favours wealthy clients over ordinary customers. In a letter that was published on IOL, addressed to the bank's CEO, Jason Quinn, the judge detailed long waiting times at the bank's Durban North branch, the bank's alleged failure to locate a previously submitted General Power of Attorney, and unreturned calls regarding an estate account. She also pointed out how elderly and low-income customers struggled to receive adequate assistance, suggesting that the bank's priorities lie with wealthier clients. "I arrived at the Durban North branch at 11.12 am and left at 1.15 pm. On arrival, I was informed that I would have to wait for 30 to 45 minutes," Pillay said. "I waited patiently. Overhearing the frustrations of other customers who had been waiting before me was truly saddening. An elderly woman, unable to operate her banking application, was making several calls to log a complaint against the unhelpfulness of the branch staff". Pillay also narrated the branch's refusal to acknowledge a General Power of Attorney she had submitted, which was approved in 2024. "The banker who attended to me did not introduce herself to me, a fact that I pointed out to her when she kept asking me who had attended to me previously". "Having entered my mother's particulars into her computer, she informed me that she would not be able to increase the limit as there was no record of a General Power of Attorney on file". Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The retired judge highlighted the struggle faced by elderly customers, many of whom were unable to navigate their apps and were left waiting for hours without adequate support. "Everyone who was waiting in that branch was angry, worried or disappointed. Old people who were unable to operate their apps on their cellular phones struggled and came for help. Most of the people waiting were African people". "Quite clearly, Nedbank is marketing itself outside the reach of ordinary people who cannot meet the standards of private wealth and special treatment" In response, Nedbank acknowledged the issues raised by Pillay and expressed regret over her experience. 'Nedbank acknowledges the open letter published on IOL on 5 August 2025 by one of our valued clients, retired Judge Dhaya Pillay, outlining her recent experience at our Durban North branch,". "Nedbank deeply regrets the inconvenience and distress caused. Our CE, Mr. Jason Quinn has tasked our Complaints team to investigate and to work with Judge Pillay to improve the experience for all clients". The bank further said that it was committed to "consistently enhancing our processes and interactions"
Time of India
29-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC warns petitioner for repeatedly challenging building approvals in Hafeezpet
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Tuesday came down heavily on a city-based businessman who had filed a petition challenging the legality of environmental clearances and building-related approvals granted for a major residential project in Hafeezpet, Serilingampally. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P Sam Koshy warned the petitioner not to play with the courts and stated that they would be very harsh. "Your petitioner is repeatedly exposing himself to the wrath of the court. Whatever be the nuances, we shall dismiss the petition with heavy costs," the bench remarked. However, upon the petitioner's counsel urging the court with an apology, the bench permitted withdrawal of the petition and let the petitioner off with a stern warning. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad T by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is this legal? Access all TV channels without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo he petitioner had claimed that building approvals were issued in the names of individuals who were already deceased at the time. Claiming to be one of the landowners, the businessman filed the petition against the land developer, alleging that environmental clearances should not have been granted, as three out of the five GPA (General Power of Attorney) holders had passed away prior to the issuance of clearance. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, standing counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB), submitted that there had been a significant delay in challenging a 2019 proceeding in the year 2025, and that despite an existing provision to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the petitioner had instead moved the High Court. State counsel further argued that the structure in question, a 14-storey building, was ready for occupation. "This is a private dispute between the petitioner and the builder. By bringing it before this court, the court's valuable time is being misused. Not being satisfied with the high court's decision in an earlier matter filed by the same petitioner, he has now filed the present petition," he informed the court. The high court observed that the petitioner had already approached other statutory bodies, including RERA, in connection with the matter, and had also previously filed a petition before the high court. In the present case, he had suppressed these facts. Permitting the petitioner to withdraw the case, the court disposed of the matter.
News18
14-07-2025
- Business
- News18
Mere Registered Sale Deed Won't Confer Ownership: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered sale deed alone does not confer ownership of a property. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran observed in a case that while the title was claimed to have been validly obtained through instruments of conveyance, the vendor's title was questionable. Furthermore, actual possession had not been proven. The court was addressing an appeal by Mahinoor Fatima Imran and others against the Telangana High Court's division bench judgment that dismissed their appeal against a single judge's order. The appellants, legal representatives of the original owners/declarants, asserted their possession and ownership. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, claimed their possession based on unchallenged title deeds. The appellants argued that the sale agreement from March 19, 1982, and the executed title deeds could not confer any title to the vendees, as the vendor did not have valid title. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, based their claims on the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana & Anr (2012). The bench, however, said, 'The decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a division bench of this court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills." The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer, particularly in light of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. The practice of using Power of Attorney sales with sale agreements and wills, instead of proper deeds of conveyance upon full consideration receipt, was criticised. The court stressed that while document registration informs the public that a document has been executed, it does not confer unimpeachable validity on all registered documents. The bench noted that the writ petitioners claimed proper conveyances through registered sale deeds from Bhavana Society, based on an unregistered agreement from 1982, which cannot be recognised as a valid transfer method. The bench pointed out, 'An instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months' time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re-registration within four. months from the date of such execution." The court concluded that the original and revalidated 1982 agreement could not result in a valid title, even if the subsequent instrument was registered. In the case, the single judge did not decide the title but raised valid suspicion regarding the vendor's title in the deed of conveyance. The writ petitioners' claim was based on a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially as it was not a registered document. The bench stated that the title is prima facie suspect, disqualifying the petitioners from claiming rightful possession, which was also unproven. The dispute involved approximately 53 acres of prime land in Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana, claimed based on registered sale deeds executed by M/s Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society. The court, while restoring the single judge's judgment, held that Bhavana Society had no valid or legal title to transfer, making the sale deeds void. view comments First Published: July 15, 2025, 03:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC refuses to stay demolition drive in Okhla encroachments
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected pleas of some residents of Muradi Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi to stop the impending demolition drive against encroachments and illegal constructions on land which were acquired by Delhi Development Authority more than 43 years ago. As many as 40 residents of the unauthorised colony through senior advocate Sanjay Hegde pleaded before a partial working day bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and A G Masih for a stay on the impending demolition drive citing the notices pasted in public places and unauthorised constructions asking the residents to vacate the place in 15 days. Senior advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and A D N Rao pointed out that the demolition drive is being carried out based on the SC's May 7 order, which noticed that part of the unauthorised colony falls under Pm-UDAY Scheme under NCT Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights to Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Regulations, 2019. The bench had directed the DDA 'to take action of demolition in accordance with law in respect of the unauthorised structures of area of 2 bigha 10 biswas. The DDA shall file a compliance affidavit within a period of three months from today. We make it clear that when we say due process of law before demolishing any structure at least 15 days' notice shall be served upon the concerned persons.' Justices Karol and Masih, who in principle do not want to dismiss any petition during the partial working day period, said the petition by residents of unauthorised colonies in Batla House area will be heard in July. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Hegde said he apprehended that the authorities would act in full swing during the interregnum and pleaded for stay. But the bench refused. The petitioner said the colony comprises a diverse group of individuals, including retired police personnel, govt employees serving in various departments and public offices as well as women, children and senior citizens. Any banket order for demolition would affect their fundamental right to live and right to shelter. The DDA had issued notices on May 26 and 27 to many residents of unauthorised colonies in the Batla House area to vacate the land in question. 'Several affected properties, including those situated at Muradi Road, Batla House, are presently inhabited by families who have resided in the locality for decades, and who possess documentary proof of possession, such as electricity bills, house tax receipts, water bills, General Power of Attorney (GPA) documents, and sanctioned building plans. Yet, in spite of their legitimate claims, these residents have been denied an opportunity to be heard, and are now at imminent risk of displacement,' the petitioners claimed.
New Indian Express
09-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Bail window starts from date of remand order: Telangana HC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has ruled that the 60/90-day period required for seeking default or statutory bail in criminal cases must be calculated from the date of the Magistrate's remand order, not from the date of registration of the FIR. This clarification was made by Justice J Sreenivas Rao while dismissing a bail plea in a high-profile property fraud case. The judge pointed out that an accused is entitled to default bail if the chargesheet is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, provided the bail application is made before the chargesheet is filed. He further stated that once the right to default bail accrues, it cannot be defeated by a subsequent filing of the chargesheet. The case involved a 34-year-old man named Koka Raghava Rao, who was arrested following a complaint by his 96-year-old grandfather, also named Koka Raghava Rao, a senior advocate with over 70 years of standing in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. According to J Vijayalakshmi, counsel for the elder Raghava Rao, the accused had allegedly committed large-scale fraud by misusing a General Power of Attorney granted in December 2023 to facilitate the sale of a flat in Ghaziabad. Instead, he is accused of executing a Development Agreement with M/s Devika Homes the very next day, portraying himself fraudulently as the GPA holder. The complaint alleged that the accused and others sold properties in Munaganoor village using fabricated death certificates and documents of deceased relatives. Substantial funds were also siphoned off from the complainant's bank accounts, including `90 lakh from FDRs at UCO Bank, `13.41 lakh from Bank of India, and over `49 lakh from the sale of a Noida flat. An FIR was registered on January 3, 2025, and the accused was arrested on February 11, 2025. He applied for default bail on the basis of the FIR date, but the court ruled that the remand date—not the FIR—is the starting point for calculating the statutory period.
