DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: by SDbfjB

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 43

									                                          1 G508 P G M
           Polycanehttp://needjustice.net/crime/narayan/polycane/index.htm


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY:                             Southport
NUMBER: 508 /05

First plaintiff:                     GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd A.C.N. 100061425 as
                                     Trustees for GoodLuck Trust

                                                      AND

Second plaintiff:                     DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                                 AND

First Defendant                       Polymedic Pty Ltd ABN -360 50414241

                                                 AND

Second Defendant                      Polycane Furniture A C N 010 076 267
                                                                                  AND
Third Defendant                        General Manager: Tim Lunn

                                            CLAIMS
The Plaintiff’s claims:

                      1) Quick Eviction Order.
                      2) Claims for my Dues and Damages
                      3) Losses on Indemnity basis for the breach of lease.


The plaintiff makes this claim in reliance on the facts alleged in the attached
Statement of Claim.

ISSUED WITH               THE     AUTHORITY        OF    THE   DISTRICT    COURT       OF
QUEENSLAND

         And filed in the SOUTHPORT Registry on 15/09/05
                                                                          Registrar:
                                (registrar to sign and seal)
To the defendant[s]:             TAKE NOTICE that you are being sued by the
                      plaintiff in the Court. If you intend to dispute this claim or
                      wish to raise any counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must
                      within 28 days of the service upon you of this claim file a
                      Notice of Intention to Defend in this Registry. If you do not
                      comply with this requirement judgment may be given against
                      you for the relief claimed and costs without further notice to
                      you. The Notice should be in Form 6 to the Uniform Civil
                      Procedure Rules. You must serve a sealed copy of it at the
                      plaintiff’s address for service shown in this claim as soon as
                      possible.
Address of Registry. :Hinze street Southport 4217

If you assert that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter or assert any
irregularity you must file a Conditional Notice of Intention to Defend in Form 7
under Rule 144, and apply for an order under Rule 16 within 14 days of filing that
Notice.

If you object that these proceedings have not been commenced in the correct district
of the Court, that objection must be included in your Notice of Intention to Defend. i

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim

PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF
Names:                                    FOR Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd
                                          DAYAL MANSUKHANI
Plaintiff’s business address:         1/397 - 401 Nerang Road Ashmore QLD4212

Address for service:                 11, Loweana Street, Southport QLD 4215
Telephone:     (07)     55311134     Fax:       (07)     55311135   E-mail   address:
mansukhani48@hotmail.com

   Signed:                           Dated:15 /9/05
Description:                           First plaintiff

Description:                            Second plaintiff

This Claim is         Polymedic Pty Ltd ABN -360 50414241
OF: to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214

 And on                  Polymedic Pty Ltd ABN -360 50414241
OF: to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214

 And on                    G.M: Tim Lunn
OF: to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214

Ph 07: 55393633 Fax:55971147Email: gm@polymedic.com.au,
polymedic@polycane.com.au

               DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY:

                                        Southport NUMBER:             /05

First plaintiff:                GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd A.C.N. 100061425 as
                                Trustees for GoodLuck Trust

                                                 AND

Second plaintiff:                DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                            AND

First Defendant                  Polymedic Pty Ltd ABN -360 50414241

                                            AND

Second Defendant                 Polycane Furniture A C N 010 076 267
                                                                                    AND

Third Defendant                     General Manager: Tim Lunn

                             STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

        This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:

   1. At all materials times the Plaintiff was and is

   i)     A Company duly incorporated according to law

          Good Luck Holdings purchased the property on 31st May 2002.
                   DEFENDANT IS THE EX-LANDLORD

Re: Tenancy commenced 1 March 2001 and described as Lot 6 on CPS
182115 County of Ward Parish of Nerang comprising 445 sq meters
including Mezzanine 754 Sq. Meters being at 397 Nerang Southport
Road Ashmore Gold Coast Queensland.
You haven’t maintained the premises by as that you have breached the condition
of clause 7, 7.2, 8, 10, 12 & section 131 of the Property Law Act 1974 clause 7 ,
7.2 ,8 ,10., 12, Act 1974,3.5.2 13.2(b). 2.3(c). 3, 4, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 5.2, 12, 13.1(a),
13.1(c), 5.2, 6.6, 13.1(a), 13.1(c). 124, 130, 131,10.1(a) under this lease.

               Pursuant to Part 8 of Property Law Act 1974.
                     Section 130 dated this 25 July 2005
& section 131 of the Property Law
If I do not file the case today I would have been Defendant instead of Plaintiff. If
Queensland Government respect Australian country than provide me with a
Legal advisor from your side so that I can prove myself, and take care of your
country reputation and give you evidences of those who are illegally ruining
your country’s reputation.

If I get legal advisor from your side, allow me to re-submit an amended claim and
statement of claims as per UCPR. For more details please visit- the below links, as I
don’t have a lawyer I am putting evidences in form of pictures taken on site.
http://needjustice.net/crime/narayan/polycane/index.htm
http://www.needjustice.net/crime/polymedic/index.htm

Defendant sold this property to Plaintiff (uneducated overseas investor.)
with no proper lease documents on 31st may’02 with the existing 5
tenants. Defendant himself was a tenant in that property.


Director of Polycane Furniture: Stewart McKay was a very nice person, but the
Management was given to Tim Lunn, the General Manager.

Tim, did not like Indians, and tried every possible means to make me go bankrupt,
down below are the evidences of the misconducts by the GM of Polycane /
Polymedic.

Third Defendant was well aware that Plaintiff had a good respect for Stewart McKay,
the first defendant, and he won’t take any action against him or file a case against
him. Since then as a General Manager, he had taken charge and started harassing,
threatening etc.
Down below Plaintiff sent email to Defendant

1          A        Tim          Lunn              <gm@polymedic.com.au>
Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:06 AM

I have just received the letter that you have dropped to our premises at
4.45pm. This appears to be no more than a print out of what you have
previously advised on the email. However, I acknowledge that you have
provided in writing that you are the current property manager and
Haydn Johnston is no longer the property manager

1B 3rd Defendant had been instructed not to pay the rent to the agent John
Haydn well in advance on 27th September 2004 and it is to be paid to the
landlord but still you did not. As such you are in arrears of rent of October
2004 till today by 1C which you have breached the rent clause of lease
directly.
You are not paying the rent in time and properly. Frequently it has been done
so.

Attaching October 2004 to September 2005 rent details are given down
below.
12 months details – rent paid for 9 months, late & short arrears of more than
3 months.
           BRANCH        DEPOSIT       SURFERS
14/07/2005                                           $7,676.54
           PARADISE
             BRANCH TRANSFER           ASHMORE
20/05/2005                                           $3,853.58
             FROM 46372821
7/04/2005 BRANCH DEPOSIT ASHMORE                     $3,853.57
7/03/2005 BRANCH DEPOSIT ASHMORE                     $3,838.27
             BRANCH   DEPOSIT           SURFERS
11/02/2005                                           $3,935.27
             PARADISE
7/02/2005 BRANCH DEPOSIT ASHMORE                     $3,935.27
24/01/2005 BRANCH DEPOSIT ASHMORE                    $3,935.27
5/11/2004    BRANCH DEPOSIT ASHMORE                  $3,935.27

$37027.77
1D $3,935.27 – this amount was until February 2005, after March 2005 there
was an increase of 3% CPI. But instead of increasing the amount Polymedic
started harassing by paying less and late.

From October 2004 till date i.e. 15th September 2005 how many rents are
short and how much they are in arrears and the irregularity of payments,
please note. This proves breach of lease. From 2 years the harassment by
working together with the neighboring tenants, has caused me loss of above
$ 200,000. Still I gave him chance without court to settle matter. I invoiced
him with a minimal rent increase of $ 4396.33, inclusive of GST + Outgoings.
Had notified Polymedic of the increase in rental amount.

2A By written notice to Defendant 3 on 31.5.05 we fixed a date for inspection
fixing the date on 2.6.05, which was altered to suit your convenience to 6.6.05
however on that day you refused to grant access to the premises thereby
breaching clause 12 of the lease as reasonable notice had been given.

2B Even though it was informed well in advance about using movie camera to trace
out the damages made, inside the premises, you objected that also. Not only that you
asked the directors of the company and landlord to go out of the premises

2C By this way you have objected to use the rights of the landlords as per clause 12.
According to the clause inspection is not at the convenience of tenants but with a
reasonable notice to enter the rented premises.

2D It was requested the tenants to act according to the lease through emails, oral
talks, recorded materials even that you have turned deaf. Even the General Manager
of Polycane threatened about Police

2E The lady staff Sue Stuart of your factory behaves very indecently whenever the
landlord visits the premises. You have never approached directly whenever the
landlord has visited the premises and the staff has misbehaved with the director and
landlord, and they have
Obstructed the inspection without any authority.

3A By way of your behavior it appears that you are doing illegal activities inside as
such you are under default of clause 10.

3B It is advised that according to clause 7 it is the duty of the tenants to maintain
and as well as repair where in you breached all the three conditions of clause 7 which
is a mandatory
3D You have not maintained the premises as required by clause 7 of your
lease.

3E Without our consent you have allowed S.A.T Civil Constructions Pty Ltd
(SAT) pursuant to an agreement between you to keep good and materials in
the area leased out to you, for which you have entered into an agreement
with SAT. This area is now subject to serious structural damage and
destruction which will require major repairs.

4 A The above email confirms that your manager is also harassing me. Even after
getting letter from me he deposited amount to Hadyn. This can be accounted as
breach of lease. Please check your lease and tell me if maintenance will be paid by
the landlord. You deducted $2000 as maintenance charges. You also didn’t give any
quotation which forced me to state that you were wrong to charge me illegally. One
light bulb is charged above $600 and $400 as own charges. This price is quite absurd
for anyone to believe. I am also forced to state that you have been torturing an
innocent and uneducated.



4B        The mezzanine floor, which is under your lease by allowing the SAT for
storage, it is in a dilapidating condition

4 C The mezzanine floor is within your lease which you misused and for which I
demanded bond. But I haven’t got any from you yet. The permission was given to
SAT by you for heavy machineries causing damage. For this reason I requested for
bond from you but you failed to do so.


4 D The above email confirms that your Defendant 3 manager is also harassing me.
Even after getting letter from me he deposited amount to Hadyn. This can be
accounted as breach of lease. Please check your lease and tell me if maintenance will
be paid by the landlord. You deducted $2000 as maintenance charges. You also
didn’t give any quotation which forced me to state that you were wrong to charge me
illegally. One light bulb is charged above $600 and $400 as own charges. This price
is quite absurd for anyone to believe. I am also forced to state that you have been
torturing an innocent and uneducated.

4 E      On 1st May 2003 cheque amounting to $315 passed my bank. I paid you
maintenance charge for the plumber and on your letter dated 21st January,2005 you
stated that I haven’t paid for the plumber. Only Australian citizen can say this. Kindly
check your account. I guess after seeing this there will not be any
“misunderstanding”.


5A     You have fixed a workshop in the common areas without the consent of the
       landlord where in you are in breach of clause of 7.2 of lease

5B You have been using the common areas for long-term storage of your
goods without our permission. In particular the storage if inflammable goods
and material. Due to such conduct you have breached clause 8 thereby
causing our insurers to place us on notice as to the indemnity consequences
in the even of a claim or the continuance thereof.



5C           It is your duty to maintain and repair damage caused by you
pursuant to clause 7. In this regard you have stored garbage in an area which
is not leased to you which was brought to your notice evidenced by
photographs only to have your General Manager behave in a rude manner.


5D     We advice you, you have been using common areas as your private land for
       storage which is against the lease contract


5E You have stored garbage in the area, which is not leased out also. This fact was
brought to your notice through photographs. For that not only you have turned deaf
but the General Manager has behaved in a rude way

5F   The Lease Bond mentioned in the lease documents were not delivered by
     Defendants and stated that Defendant has not taken any Bonds from the tenants

5 G You have not handed over the bonds of the tenants you being the Original
landlord
      till today, even after you receiving by them. For your false statement the
company is put for loss because of challenging the same believing your words about
not receiving the bonds from tenants against the SAT and SAT produced the bond
receipt in the court, as such the company had to lose the case. The company is going
to claim damages against you for that also, also for the damages made out to the
property, which was in the possession of SAT, which is because of your negligence
6A SAT gave bond on 1.4.97. The copy of the cheque was presented before court
and case got dismissed and I had to pay legal cost of $697 along with my reputation.
But you said that no bond was paid.

6B          In November 2003 you paid David Russell $3500 as bond but you didn’t
gave any information to me regarding the person who paid the bond. You told me
late(mid of April in 2004) and I haven’t received the bond till date. Is this how the
citizens deal with foreigners?

6C      Paramount Video also vacated my property without bond and hence I lost
money there as well.

7A       After selling the property the Defendant prepared a forged
document for ARP as on 12th Feb ’03 so as to pay less rent to the
Plaintiff and to make Plaintiff Bankrupt. Because of this Document ARP
is not paying legal rent
7B You sold property on 31 May, 2002. After that you or Ploymedic has no right or
       authority to sign the letter to ART, for which I lost more than $15,000
7 C Also advised that you have given lease deed to another tenant ART even after
selling the property of the company, which is contrary to lease deed produced to the
Bank

7D n lease it is mentioned that all the client’s bond will be paid by you. You didn’t
pay the bond according to the lease.

7E You waived bond to ART in a letter dated 16th November, 2001. You didn’t tell
me about this during the selling of property. For this the property was left in a pretty
bad condition by him and stopped rent in 1 st May but vacated after June. Here I lost
$10.000.

7 F RCO told me that bond has been paid but till date I haven’t received the same.
Till
  today he has been using my property without lease. Also you didn’t sign lease with
RCO.


       8A        From 14 months the shade no. 4 is not being leased because of
       your
             using the outside areas besides the shade no. 4 for workshop
       purpose and storage purpose. You helped ART and had waived the Bond
       so ART left the property in damaged condition; also you had issued ART
       a letter illegally in February 2003.

       8B     You have persistently and deliberately encroached upon the
       areas not part of the area leased to you.


For the above breach of lease you are here by put on notice that the landlord’s
company is terminating the lease in accordance with the clauses explained as a direct
result of default of lease


  The landlord advises you to vacate the premises by close of business on
                              16th June 2005


9A Incase if you fail to abide by the notice provided in accordance with section 131
of the Property Law Act 1974 we will be applying to the court for a warrant
possession and will seek all costs from you as an indemnity basis



All the below mentioned points as well as websites ( I will send you an updated
website later) of all the tenants which will provide proof and evidence of torturing me
for 39 months for which I suffered loss.
9B
1. . You three tenants(Polymedic, Molectra and SAT) together submitted in writing
   that wooden boxes, tyres and drums don’t belong to you. So whose materials are
   there? I, purposely, didn’t clean the junk so that I can put the picture on website
   and also to the ministers. This will prove who will be faulty – tenants or landlord?
   Court will decide whose fault is this.
9C
2. Please read the SAT solicitor, Troy Houghton’s notice dated 18 th June, 2004
   where it is clearly mentioned that there has been misunderstanding between SAT
   and me due to your misconduct.
9D
Note : You have breached the lease long before but I respected you. On 21st January,
2005 you denied it and advised me that it will become police matter.
10A
We Indians respect and consider relationships and reputation more than any monetary
matters. But your letter dated 21st January,2005 proved that you only respect money
and don’t bother about relationship. Even today I respect you. I will be giving you all
evidences and notices, along with clarification, which will prove what I have lost due
to your negligence. I also will be putting the said materials in my web site for my
investors and also will make a video tape along with legal documents prepared by
Indian solicitors which will be presented before the court and may be even before
Supreme Court. The party who loses will bear the legal charges.


      And the First plaintiff claims against the 3 defendants:

 1)    Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount
                        of $150,000.00
       a) From 2 years misused the property in illegal manner, if there was a right
          solicitor then the first month itself the defendants would be in breach and
          according to the market valuation $100 m2, plaintiffs would have earned
          the above claimed amount till now.

       Attached evidence which shows that he has not paid rent on time and paid less
       than actual from day first.

       b) In august plaintiff had plans for further development of the property and if
          this plan would have been processed then plaintiffs would had been earning
          what is claimed above. But due to misuse of the property and excessive
          usage of the areas of the property the plaintiffs have suffered enormously.

       c) Damage to the leased area of property in such a bad condition that no new
          tenants took interest in leasing out the property Unit No. 4 due to which I
          suffered lose of rent for approx 14 months

                             2) Arrears of rents
3) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary damages.
Issued them several notices via email and faxes but they have remained in constant
breach, instead of remedying.
4) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

 5) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal letters with threat of going to Police, while they remained in
breach.


  And the Second plaintiff claims against the 3 defendants:
   1)      Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount of
                              $150,000.00

   a) Suffered heart pain several times due to the torture and harassment caused and
   on 15th November 2004 heart operation. Allamanda Hospital

   b) Harassment by giving phone calls to take pictures and then pose for it, with
   declaration that no one will support me, as I am not a Australia resident.

        C) Pictures prove their several attempts to torture the second plaintiff by each
        time inviting for pictures. The above claim is very very minimal to the
        harassment the second plaintiff has overcome.

2) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary
damages. Being on business category, had to engage myself in business
but lost my entire life saving - capital and overseas capital.

4) Second plaintiff arranged overseas finance for this property. Due to the illegal
torture by the defendants, second plaintiff could not do anything. Second defendants
had taken contract of the property maintenance and had prepared plan for its new
expansion. Which was not successful instead suffered bad debts.

4) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

5) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal notices with threat of going to court, while they remained in
breach.
First Plaintiff: For GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd. For
Dayal Mansukhani
Second plaintiff: Dayal Mansukhani 14/9/05



From

Dayal Mansukhani



Both the solicitors join together and cheat investors and no action taken in the court. Cases pending
till today
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY:
          Southport NUMBER: 501/05
The plaintiff                             Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd.
                                                  A C N 100061425
                                                        AND
Second plaintiff                               DAYAL MANSUKHANI
                                                      AND
First Defendant :                         SAT Civil Constructions Pty Ltd
                                          A.C.N. 077 817 737

                                                 AND
Second Defendant                         Jan Frank Weinert
                                                 AND

Third Defendant:                         Veronica Ann Cooper

                                        CLAIMS

Plaintiff’s claims:
                      1) Quick Eviction Order.
                      2) Losses on Indemnity basis for the breach of lease.

The plaintiff makes this claim in reliance on the facts alleged in the attached
Statement of Claim.

ISSUED WITH            THE    AUTHORITY        OF    THE    DISTRICT        COURT   OF
QUEENSLAND

And filed in the SOUTHPORT Registry on --/09/05


                                  Registrar: (registrar to sign and seal)


To the defendant[s]:                TAKE NOTICE that you are being sued by the
                         plaintiff in the Court. If you intend to dispute this claim or
                         wish to raise any counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must
                         within 28 days of the service upon you of this claim file a
                         Notice of Intention to Defend in this Registry. If you do not
                         comply with this requirement judgment may be given against
                         you for the relief claimed and costs without further notice to
                         you. The Notice should be in Form 6 to the Uniform Civil
                         Procedure Rules. You must serve a sealed copy of it at the
                         plaintiff’s address for service shown in this claim as soon as
                         possible.
Address of Registry. :Hinze street Southport 4217


If you assert that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter or assert any
irregularity you must file a Conditional Notice of Intention to Defend in Form 7
under Rule 144, and apply for an order under Rule 16 within 14 days of filing that
Notice.

If you object that these proceedings have not been commenced in the correct district
of the Court, that objection must be included in your Notice of Intention to Defend. i

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim

PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF
Names:                                    FOR Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd
                                          DAYAL MANSUKHANI
Plaintiff’s business address:         1/397 - 401 Nerang Road Ashmore QLD4212

Address for service:                 11, Loweana Street, Southport QLD 4215
Telephone:     (07)     55311134     Fax:       (07)   55311135    E-mail    address:
mansukhani48@hotmail.com

Signed:             Dated: /9/05

Description:             PLAINTIFF



This Claim is    SAT Civil Constructions Pty Ltd A.C.N. 077 817 737
to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214
OF:
 And on:
Jan Frank Weinert to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland –
4214
OF:

And on:

Veronica Ann Cooper to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland –
4214

Ph 07: 55975199/5023 Fax 07 55975322 Email: satcivil@qldnet.c
   DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Southport
                    NUMBER: 501/05


First plaintiff                           Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd.
                                             A C N 100061425
                                                 AND
Second plaintiff                              DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                                          AND

First Defendant :                      SAT Civil Constructions Pty Ltd
                                      A.C.N. 077 817 737& ABN 86 077 817 737

                                                    AND

Second Defendant                         Jan Frank Weinert
                                                 AND

Third Defendant:                         Veronica Ann Cooper

                               STATEMENT OF CLAIM

        This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:

                     1. At all materials times the Plaintiff was and is:-

   i)     A Company duly incorporated according to law;

          Good Luck Holdings purchased the property on 31st May 2002.

Re: Tenancy commenced 1 March 2001 and described as Lot 6 on CPS
182115 County of Ward Parish of Nerang comprising 619 sq meters
being at 697 Nerang Southport Road Ashmore Gold Coast Queensland.

                   Pursuant to Part 8 of Property Law Act 1974.
                       Section 130 dated this 25 July 2005
                         & section 131 of the Property Law
You haven’t maintained the premises by as that you have breached the condition
of clause 7 , 7.2 ,8 ,10., 12, Act 1974,3.5.2 13.2(b). 2.3(c). 3, 4, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 5.2, 12,
13.1(a), 13.1(c), 5.2, 6.6, 13.1(a), 13.1(c). 124, 130, 131,10.1(a) under this lease.
              We got a lease of S.A.T. from 01.03.2001 to 28.02.2006.
          We are bound with the terms and conditions of this lease only.
S.A.T and Good Luck has only one relation. Good Luck is your new Landlord
and you are the Tenant from the ex Landlord.
On 7th June2002 my lawyer advised you to keep the terms and conditions of the
Lease Deed. According to this notice you were supposed to act, but you failed to
do so.
If I not file case today I would have been Defendant instead of Plaintiff. If
Queensland Government respect Australian country than provide me Legal
advisor from your side so that I can prove myself, and take care of your country
reputation and give you evidences of those who are illegally ruining your
country reputation.

If I am provided with legal advisor from your side than I will submit my amended
claim and statement of claims per VCPR for more detail visit- website, as I don’t
have a lawyer I am putting evidences in form of pictures taken on site.

    S A T 2082/03 http://needjustice.net/crime/narayan/sat/index.htm
 134/05 C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\New Folder (3)\cute\case\SRB
                               Transcript.doc

My overseas Investor was to develop on my private unpleased area for my
project in August 2002.And for this reason of Defendant illegal covering my
private area ,my project was delayed and my overseas Investors cancelled my
project. I want claim for the losses I have suffered due to cancellation of my
project.

I had taken Loan from my overseas Investors and because of Defendant illegal
occupying my private area I was not able to complete my project and thereby
not paying money back to my investor. Defendant pressure me that you will lose
your life and says that Southport court supports Defendant.

The solicitors from both the sides were Australian citizens. Both of them joined
hands together and worked against me. As a result this case 2082/03.was
dismissed. I had paid you $697 legal charges. This was injustice to overseas
investor and this proves how the people rob overseas investors in Gold Coast.

I gave defendant another offer through my solicitor in letter dated 7th October
2002. My Corporate Lawyer gave you an offer of lease for extra parking area.
This offer also proves that you have been in breach ever since and that is why
this offer was made to you.
This Solicitor letter proves that from how long the defendant are misusing my
property and Plaintiff and this country solicitor proves that till today that
Southport support crime and give judgment in favour of them
I also attach all notices and picture and notices from defendants solicitors which
proves that the defendant are using above 3000 sq. mt of my property unleased
to them and allowing me to take picture of illegal use saying that this case
judgment will come in their favor as in case 380D of 2004

18th June 2004 Our Reference No.: Lyn:301236 Mr. Houghton
On 18thJune 2004 a letter was issued to Lata Milner.
All these points of this letter confirm that since that time you have been in
continuous breach.
On 7th February 2005 Good Luck had sent you a notice to increase the rent a
little in return of the misuse of the property and gave you a reasonable extra
time to vacate the leased property. This also fulfils the requirements the sections
124, 130, 131 of the Property Act 1994.

This proves that Defendant is torturing me and saying that judge Rackemann is
interested in this property and he is filing case on his behalf. Blayne ledger is partner
of judge Rackemann and the judge will give judgment in their favor
Note: The case no. 134/ 2005 is also a link to the misuse of the leased property. That
is why this case was filed. Even in this case and in the statement of Claim it will be
proved how badly you have breached the lease

During the period of 13th Dec 2003 to 13th Dec 2004 Loungetec was not
registered.This proves that GoodLuck is not involved in Loungetec Company.

Good Luck has sent you verbal and written notices with evidence many times. That
has given you more than enough time to remedy your breach but each time you have
ignored.

1) You have continually and persistently encroached upon common areas in
   such a manner as to be repugnant to the terms of the lease.
   Your plant and machinery, comprising a very large road resurfacing
   machine and ancillary vehicles and other plant and equipment, are
   continually parked, serviced and cleaned on the common area. As well,
  the said common area is used as a storage area for your goods, fuel and
  stock. You apparently consider the common areas for you and your staff’s
  sole use.
2) You have not maintained your leased area in a clean, tidy and safe
  manner which is clearly required by the terms of your lease.
  Despite repeated requests you have continually failed to so keep the
  leased area.
  In addition you have continually used the common areas outside your
  tenancy for the purposes of cleaning your plant and equipment which
  given the nature of your plant and equipment causes considerable damage
  to the common areas you use. Further, the toxic nature of the effluent
  resulting from the use of the common area in this fashion causes and
  continues to cause health and environmental issues. Also these practices
  are against Gold Coast City Council regulations.
3) You are storing your goods, stock and heavy materials within an area
  leased to the tenant Polycane without consent which is required by the
  terms of the lease and clearly in breach of same.
  As a consequence of the storage your goods, stock and heavy materials in
  and on the mezzanine floor is causing and has caused serious and
  considerable structural damage.
4) You had been directed on 27 September 2003 to pay Good Luck Pty Ltd
  the rent and not to pay the rent to the real estate agent Johnston Haydn.
  However you chose to ignore the directions and as such in arrears of rent
  for October 2004 in the sum of $3,932.51.
5) The level of the ground surrounding your tenancy being in the common
  areas has been eroded and damage caused to the underlying drainage
   due to your misuse of this area. This fact has been brought to your
   attention on several occasions both orally and by emails.
6) Because of your misuse Good Luck Pty Ltd Good Luck Pty Ltd have
   received warnings from its insurer of the consequences of misuse of the
   property.
   Indeed, Good Luck Pty Ltd is anticipating proceeding under the Workplace
   Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994
   following inspections. Any prosecution that may arise by these bodies will
   have been caused in major part by your conduct as a tenant.
You read point 2, 3, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, and 5d of the statement of Claim dated 21 st May
2003, The Magistrate Court case no. 2082/ 2003.

This statement of claim was made according to the Section 124 of the Property Law
Act 1994. This is still continuing. Since then you are in continuous breach.

On 8th April 2004 PRD sent you a notice that you were not permitted to use the
premises (open area) for the maintenance of heavy machinery but you were restrained
by clause 6.5 of your lease which prohibits you from doing anything which may
become a nuisance or annoyance to other people in the nearby premises. Of course
you are permitted to use the area leased out to you for your heavy machinery
maintenance.
You are also in breach regarding these clauses of the lease deed 5.2, 6.6, 13.1(a),
13.1(c). You are also in breach under clause 5.2, 12, 13.1(a), 13.1(c),
That you are in breach of lease according to the essential conditions 3, 4, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1,
10.1(a) under this lease.
Also you have already been given more than enough time to vacate.
So you have lost your right for a further term of Lease under the clause 2.3(c).

I refuse to renew your option of further tenancy.
 Hence I exercise my right to terminate the Lease under the Clause 13.2(b).

Apart from the time given to you earlier, I am giving you still another 28 day’s time
to vacate the said premises that is rented to you on lease by July 18 th, 2005, 14:00
Hours.
At July 18th 2005, 14:00 Hours, this Lease stands terminated.

Under clause 3.5.2 you will also be liable to pay to the Landlord the portion of the
yearly rental accruing due prior to the date of determination. 16/6/05

The letter 15th June 2004 issued by Stewart McKay to SAT and Cc to Dayal
Mansukhani proves that at that time also you were using the Mezzanine floor to store
the heavy material that was leased out to Polycane but not to you. That means that
you have been using the said area without the permission and knowledge of the
Landlord. The situation is the same till date. Hence you are in breach of lease for
unauthorized use.

Latest by July 18th, 2005, 14:00 Hours, you must vacate the area rented by you. This
is in accordance with the Sections 130 and 131 of the Property Law Act 1994.

First of all you are in breach under clause 6.6 of this lease deed. Under this clause the
landlord may make Rules at any time and may vary the Rules at any time, so long as
they are not in consistence with this lease.

All the above points are the proofs that you have been misusing the property all the
time and have been in breach since beginning.


Both the solicitors join together and cheat investors and no action taken in the court.
Cases pending till today
21
                           15/9/05
     DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Southport
                     NUMBER: 507/05
First plaintiff:     GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd A.C.N. 100061425 as
                     Trustees for GoodLuck Trust 2

                            AND
Second plaintiff                      DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                          AND

First Defendant                       Australian Rubber Technologies
                                      A.C.N.098842454 A.B.N.800988424454

                                          AND

Second Defendant                     Sherron Lee Gallmore

                                         AND

Third Defendant                   James Taylor Gemmel

                                             AND

Fourth Defendant                  Wayne Arthur Houghton

                                        CLAIMS
The Plaintiff’s claim:

   1) The sum of $61618.9 in damages
   2) Losses on Indemnity basis

The plaintiff makes this claim in reliance on the facts alleged in the attached
Statement of Claim.

ISSUED WITH            THE    AUTHORITY       OF    THE    DISTRICT      COURT          OF
QUEENSLAND

And filed in the SOUTHPORT Registry on 15/09/05

                                              Registrar: (registrar to sign and seal)

To the defendant[s]:                TAKE NOTICE that you are being sued by the
                         plaintiff in the Court. If you intend to dispute this claim or
                         wish to raise any counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must
                         within 28 days of the service upon you of this claim file a
                         Notice of Intention to Defend in this Registry. If you do not
                         comply with this requirement judgment may be given against
                       you for the relief claimed and costs without further notice to
                       you. The Notice should be in Form 6 to the Uniform Civil
                       Procedure Rules. You must serve a sealed copy of it at the
                       plaintiff’s address for service shown in this claim as soon as
                       possible.

Address of Registry. :Hinze street Southport 4217

If you assert that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter or assert any
irregularity you must file a Conditional Notice of Intention to Defend in Form 7
under Rule 144, and apply for an order under Rule 16 within 14 days of filing that
Notice.

If you object that these proceedings have not been commenced in the correct district
of the Court, that objection must be included in your Notice of Intention to Defend. i

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim

PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF
Names:                                    FOR Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd
                                          DAYAL MANSUKHANI
Plaintiff’s business address:         1/397 - 401 Nerang Road Ashmore QLD4212

Address for service:                 11, Loweana Street, Southport QLD 4215
Telephone:      (07)    55311134     Fax:       (07)   55311135    E-mail    address:
mansukhani48@hotmail.com

Signed:            Dated:15/9/05
                  FOR PLAINTIFF
Description:           PLAINTIFF 2

This Claim is               Australian Rubber Technologies
                                 A.C.N.098842454 A.B.N.800988424454
OF: to Be served on A.R.P, P. O. Box 8624, QLD Mail Centre, Bundull – 9726

 And on                         Sherron Lee Gallmore
OF:     to Be served on A.R.P, P. O. Box 8624, QLD Mail Centre, Bundull –
9726

 And on                         James Taylor Gemmel
OF: to Be served on A.R.P, P. O. Box 8624, Gold Coast Mail Centre, bundull –
9726
And on                     Wayne Arthur Houghton


OF: to Be served on A.R.P, P. O. Box 8624, Gold Coast Mail Centre, bundull –
9726
Ph 07: 07 55278662 F 55278983




DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Southport
NUMBER:507/05

First plaintiff:           GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd A.C.N. 100061425 as
                           Trustees for GoodLuck Trust 2

                                   AND

Second plaintiff               DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                   AND

First Defendant                 Australian Rubber Technologies
                                A.C.N.098842454 A.B.N.800988424454

                                   AND

Second Defendant               Sherron Lee Gallmore

                                   AND

Third Defendant             James Taylor Gemmel

                                      AND

Fourth Defendant            Wayne Arthur Houghton

                        STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
                           Rent, Loan & Other matters

                              Attached Exhibit no 1 to

   This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:
   1. At all materials times the Plaintiff was and is:-
      ii) A Company duly incorporated according to law

Re: Tenancy commenced 1 March 2001 and described as Lot 6 on CPS
182115 County of Ward Parish of Nerang comprising 361 sq meters
being at 397 Nerang Southport Road Ashmore Gold Coast Queensland.
  Re: Refund of Loan of $22,000 obtained from the Good Luck holding
                                 P/L.

   iii)   Rentals in arrears amounting to approx. $25088.9
   iv)    Loan capital with interest amounting to approx. $36,530.00.
   v)
          Good Luck Holdings purchased the property on 31st May 2002.

If I do not file the case today I would have been Defendant instead of Plaintiff. If
Queensland Government respect Australian country then my humble is to
kindly provide me with a Legal advisor from your side so that I can prove
myself, and take care of your country reputation and give you evidences of those
who are illegally ruining your country’s reputation.

If I get legal advisor from your side, allow me to re-submit an amended claim and
statement of claims as per UCPR. For more details please visit- the below links, as I
don’t have a lawyer I am putting evidences in form of pictures taken on site.

                         Check website: A R P 2080/03
             http://www.needjustice.net/crime/narayan/art/index.htm

   1. Australian Rubber Technologies (A R P) was a tenant of the property at 397 –
      401 Nerang Road, Ashmore, Qld. 4214 from 31st May 2002 to 28th February
      2004. We purchased the property from Polycane on 31st May 2002 and your
      occupancy continued with Good Luck Holdings P/L until your lease expired on
      28th February 2004.

   2. In that period from July 2002 you were required to pay $500.00 per month for
      the excess area used by you. You paid only $ 250.00 even after frequent
      requests were made for the correct payment of $500.00. Please note that along
      with the transfer of the title to the property all terms agreed to between the
      previous owner and the tenant are assigned to the new owner of the property.

   3. Accordingly you had an agreement dated 8th February 2002 with the previous
      owner to pay $500.00 per month from July 2002 apart from rent for the use of
      the other areas that you occupied.

      01/07/2002 TO 28/02/2004 = 20 2062.08+4126.54 = $6,188.62 less paid

      Tenancy expired on 28.2.04 and as per clause 2.2 you were allowed to continue
      on the basis that you would pay rent of $100.00 per square meter plus GST and
      $ 500.00 plus GST for the other occupied areas, commencing 01.04.2004 to
      07.07.2004 when you left occupancy. Upon or calculations as follows you owe
      us the sum of:

      361 per sq meters @ $100 sqm2      $11,577.50
      Plus GST                     $ 900.47
      Equals                              $12,477.00
      Less paid to PRD             $ 6,777.69

      Total Due                       $ 5,700.28

You have not returned the premises in a fit and proper state given fair wear and tear.
The property is in a extremely dilapidated way and unfit for occupation. Further it
will take considerable expense to repair the damage you caused to the property and
once the cost of same is accurately determined we shall hold you responsible for
payment of same. By way of example you had been paid for the repairs to the power
meter in the sum of $8000.00 by the former owner who had waived one month rent
and the bond amount for such repairs yet you removed same despite it being a fixture
and not your property. You had no right to remove the power meter. The cost of
repairs and replacements will no doubt be in the vicinity of $10,000.00 for which we
hold you liable. You will be advised in due course of the repair costs.
Even after the lease period, you had left a heavy vehicle on the premises and when
asked to remove it you asserted you had permission of SAT. However SAT had no
such authority to allow you to so park your vehicle. Thus for keeping your machines
in the parking areas for 2 month you are liable to pay the rent of $ 2000.00.
             $10.000 +$2000 =12000 + GST 1200 = &13200
 From day one is taking undue advantage.
took in control my ex-solicitor Roy Zaghini
01/07/2002 TO 28/02/2004 = 20 2062.08+4126.54 = $6,188.62 less paid
$10.000 +$2000 =12000 + GST 1200 =                           &13200
                                                     $ 5,700.28
Total Due                                            $25088.9
Re: Refund of Loan of $22,000 obtained from the Good Luck holding P/L. &
Other matters
1
Good Luck Holdings Pty Ltd gave you a loan in the sum of $50,000 on 29 th July,
2002 and had co-invested in your company up to 31st July 2003 on the basis of profit
sharing of 60% to ARP and 40% Good Luck Pty Ltd. This loan was documented and
signed by all the parties.
2
At the end of August 2003 you repaid $30,000 and another loan agreement was
entered into between you and Good Luck for the amount of $20,000 plus the balance
due under the previous loan a sum of $2000 making in total $22,000. We calculate
the amount due to be as follows:-
3
$22,000 being the amount of the second loan.
4
Default interest for 57 weeks during the period 26 August 2003 to 16 th July 2005 at
the rate of $240.00 per month which equals $13,680.00.
5
Default for August 2003 $850.00.
6       Thereby making a total of $36,530.00.

7 The Plaintiff had purchased a free-hold property, where Defendants were tenants of
the ex-landlord and so ARP – Wayne & James become tenant of plaintiff’s property,
also.

8 ARP was interested in investment for business expansion.

a Plaintiff was here on a business visa 457, with interest of investing in 2, 3
businesses for PR purpose invested in ARP $ 50,000 @ 40% profit share.

B Roy Zaghini was appointed by Plaintiff, on retainer basis and was instructed to
prepare the partnership agreement, on my behalf.

C Both citizens, borrower and ex-solicitor joined together and from day one ARP
took advantage, by not showing right documents and nor paid the right share nor
showed any accounts, financial records etc. and my solicitor did not take any serious
legal action.

D After 4, 5 months Plaintiff requested the ex-solicitor to get the capital amount back
from ARP -Wayne & James as they did not show any records or business
transactions, but Wayne & James did not pay back the capital invested amount.

E Entire one year was over, but, Wayne & James, paid $ 5625 only as profit 40%
share.

F After one year Wayne & James, could not return back the full capital amount and
that they would offer the plaintiff from 40% profit share to 15% profit share and will
pay back $ 30,000 and would pay fixed profit share of $ 220 per week in exchange.
They suggested PR requirement was only 10% share profit.

G Plaintiff was helpless, because the capital amount was with them, so had to agree
their illegal demand.

H Once again, at the last minute the partnership agreement was changed to loan
agreement.

I Wayne & James did not pay their loan interest rightly, and after several notices on
26th October 2004, they came with a document from ASIC for discharge or release of
property form 321.

J Wayne & James wanted signing of form 321, even before making payment of the
arrears and capital amount; they had a PDC cheque against it. (who knows PDC
would pass or not?)

K Plaintiff demanded for the full amount before giving release and was even
prepared to sign any document of release.

L But Wayne & James, both did not agree asking me to go to Small Claim and took
back the entire amount and from that day i.e. 26.10.04 stopped paying interest as
well.

7 Previous experiences were bitter, as they influenced my ex-solicitor, in their favor
and being my tenant had tortured, by not paying rent in time nor in right figures.
8 And the 1st year of partnership agreement – they did not pay me the profit share
rightly and nor could they arrange the full payment of the capital invested amount.
9 Left plaintiffs property in very bad condition. Till date no one has entered nor
leased.

10 With ex-landlord, who is and was one of the tenants also, got prepared a forged
document on 12th February 2003, to pay short rents. Defendants have rental issues
also.

11 This proves solicitor, ex-landlord and defendants were all taking advantage, of the
plaintiff.

12 Another solicitor was appointed and 3 real estates agents to collect rents from the
tenants – they did not still pay proper rents.

13 A case was filed in Magistrate Court case no. 2080/2003; again both solicitors
joined together filed the case but did not go further.

14 Plaintiff invested in this Australian citizen company for Permanent Residency
purpose, but did not get profit share or right interest or invested amount or PR.

Plaintiff claims losses and damages on indemnity basis.

After having so many bitter experiences how could the plaintiff sign the form 321?

                And the First plaintiff claims against the 4 defendants:

1)   Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount of $150,000.00

      a) From 2 years misused the property in illegal manner, if there was a right
         solicitor then the first month itself the defendants would be in breach and
         according to the market valuation $100 m2, plaintiffs would have earned
         the above claimed amount till now.
      Attached evidence which shows that he has not paid rent on time and paid less
      than actual from day first.

      b) In august plaintiff had plans for further development of the property and if
         this plan would have been processed then plaintiffs would had been earning
         what is claimed above. But due to misuse of the property and excessive
         usage of the areas of the property the plaintiffs have suffered enormously.

      c) Damage to the leased area of property in such a bad condition that no new
          tenants took interest in leasing out the property Unit No. 4 due to which I
          suffered lose of rent for approx 14 months

       d) On 31st may he promised to vacant the premises and on 15 April he gave
          100 mt. vacant area so that I move my goods and start my business from
          there. I arrange all my business needs like ADSL line, Telephone line etc,
          but he not vacant the whole place for that I have to again arrange new place
          quickly and within 15 days ie on 31st may ,for which I have suffered
          enormously


2) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary damages.
Issued them several notices via email and faxes but they have remained in constant
breach, instead of remedying.

4) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

 5) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal notices with threat of going to court, while they remained in
breach.

6) I trusted Plaintiff and Invested as a partner in his business but he cheated me and
Got favor of my solicitor and my permanent Residency was delayed



And the Second plaintiff claims against the 4 defendants:

1)    Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount of $150,000.00

     a) Suffered heart pain several times due to the torture and harassment caused and
     on 15th November 2004 heart operation. Allamanda Hospital

     b) Harassment by giving phone calls to take pictures and then pose for it, with
     declaration that no one will support me, as I am not a Australia resident.
     c) I am on visa and they cheated me not give me proper Proper partnership
     Business document for this reason lose my permanent Residency and still 40
     months are over and I haven’t received my PR.
     He also paid my solicitor $1900 and got him engaged for which my solicitor not
   take any action against him for which I suffered losses.This got disclosed to me
   after 2 years.
   c) Pictures prove their several attempts to torture the second plaintiff by each time
   inviting for pictures. The above claim is very very minimal to the harassment the
   second plaintiff has overcome.

4) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary damages.
Being on business category, had to engage myself in business but lost my entire life
saving - capital and overseas capital.

5) Second plaintiff arranged overseas finance for this property. Due to the illegal
torture by the defendants, second plaintiff could not do anything. Second defendants
had taken contract of the property maintenance and had prepared plan for its new
expansion. Which was not successful instead suffered bad debts.

6) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

7) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal notices with threat of going to court, while they remained in
breach.


First Plaintiff: For GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd.
Dayal Mansukhani
Second plaintiff: Dayal Mansukhani
     DISTRIC COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Southport
                     NUMBER: 502/05


First plaintiff                              Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd.
                                                   A C N 100 061 425
                                                         AND

Second plaintiff                                   DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                                               AND

First Defendant :                       Molectra Technologies Pty Ltd. ABN 58091843944

                                                         AND

Second Defendant                                     John G. Dobozy
                                                         AND

Third Defendant :                                      Bruce Neil

                                               CLAIMS
    Plaintiff’s claims:
                          3) Quick Eviction Order.
                          4) Losses on Indemnity basis for the breach of lease.

The plaintiff makes this claim in reliance on the facts alleged in the attached Statement of Claim.

ISSUED WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

And filed in the SOUTHPORT Registry on --/09/05

                                                                                              Registrar:
                                (registrar to sign and seal)


To the defendant[s]:         TAKE NOTICE that you are being sued by the plaintiff in the Court. If
                             you intend to dispute this claim or wish to raise any counterclaim against
                             the plaintiff, you must within 28 days of the service upon you of this
                             claim file a Notice of Intention to Defend in this Registry. If you do not
                             comply with this requirement judgment may be given against you for the
                             relief claimed and costs without further notice to you. The Notice should
                             be in Form 6 to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. You must serve a
                             sealed copy of it at the plaintiff’s address for service shown in this claim
                             as soon as possible.
Address of Registry. :Hinze street Southport 4217

If you assert that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter or assert any irregularity you
must file a Conditional Notice of Intention to Defend in Form 7 under Rule 144, and apply for an
order under Rule 16 within 14 days of filing that Notice.

If you object that these proceedings have not been commenced in the correct district of the Court,
that objection must be included in your Notice of Intention to Defend. i

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim

PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF
Names:                                     FOR Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd
                                           DAYAL MANSUKHANI
Plaintiff’s business address:              1/397 - 401 Nerang Road Ashmore QLD4212

Address for service:               11, Loweana Street, Southport QLD 4215 Telephone: (07)
55311134 Fax: (07) 55311135 E-mail address: mansukhani48@hotmail.com

Signed:                Dated: /9/05

Description:             PLAINTIFF


This Claim is Molectra Technologies Pty Ltd.
to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214
 And
John G. Dobozy to Be served on 397 – 401 Nerang Stree, Queensland – 4214

And
Bruce Neil to Be served on Level 6, 169 Liverpool Street Hobart Tasmania -7000

Ph 07:: 55975533 Fax no: 55975333& Ph 03: 6215 5901 Fax no: 03 6215 5966
Email: Molectra@bigpond.net.au,bneill@smf.com.au




          DISTRIC COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY:
                   Southport NUMBER:502 /05

First plaintiff                           Good Luck Holdings Pty. Ltd.
                                              A C N 100 061 425
                                                   AND

Second plaintiff                                   DAYAL MANSUKHANI

                                                       AND

First Defendant :                   Molectra Technologies Pty Ltd. ABN
58091843944

                                                           AND

Second Defendant                                  John G. Dobozy
                                                          AND

Third Defendant :                                    Bruce Neil


                              STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

         This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:

                    2. At all materials times the Plaintiff was and is:-

   vi)     A Company duly incorporated according to law;
            Good Luck Holdings purchased the property on 31st May 2002.

Re: Tenancy described as No 3 on Lot 6 on CPS 182115 County of Ward Parish of
Nerang being at 397- 401 Nerang Southport Road Ashmore Gold Coast Queensland.

The ex landlord had sent you a copy of the lease. You did not sign it. Normally all the

 general leases have the same rules. You have broken the rules of all types of leases.
                    On 19th July 2004 you had a notice to vacate.

On the 13th July 2004, as contained in your letter dated this day you agreed to
                 pay a flat monthly rent of $10,000.00 + GST

Accordingly total amount Molectra in is arrears $225,298.54 up to 19th September,
2005. From last 5 months Molectra Technologies has not paid no rentals, at all.

 You haven’t maintained the premises by as that you have breached the condition of
       clause 7 , 7.2 ,8 ,10., 12, & section 131 of the Property Law Act 1974

                 Pursuant to Part 8 of Property Law Act 1974.
                     Section 130 dated this 25 July 2005

If I not file case today I would have been Defendant instead of Plaintiff. If
Queensland Government respect Australian country than provide me Legal advisor
from your side so that I can prove myself, and take care of your country reputation
and give you evidences of those who are illegally ruining your country reputation.

If I am provided with legal advisor from your side than I will submit my amended
claim and statement of claims per VCPR for more detail visit- website, as I don’t
have a lawyer I am putting evidences in form of pictures taken on site.
.
         S A T 2082/03 http://needjustice.net/crime/narayan/sat/index.htm,
          4th October 2002 My solicitor Mr. Roy Zaghani sent a notice to:
Molectra or RCO for lease of premises at $100 per Sq meter / annum for covered area
     ie 661 Sq mt. and for mezzanine $40 per sq meter/annum ie 62 sq mt.and open
    outside area at $25 per sq meter/annum for 920 sq .mt. as per ABCD diagram or
  vacant the premises .Claim for the lease amount which come to around $91580 plus
   GST $9158 Total 1,00738 per annum. Claim for lease amt from October 2002 till
                            date plus interest on due amount.
My overseas Investor was to develop on my private unleased area for my project in
August 2002.And for this reason of Defendant illegal covering my private area ,my
project was delayed and my overseas Investors cancelled my project. I want claim
for the losses I have suffered due to cancellation of my project.

I had taken Loan from my ovearseas Investors and because of Defendant illegal
occupying my private area I was not able to complete my project and thereby not
paying money back to my investor. Defendant pressure me that you will lose your life
and says that Southport court supports Defendant.

We refer to an inspection of the premises which has revealed serious and
continuing problems with your occupancy of the said premises. We also refer
to the previous correspondence and notices to you.


 1. There has been no formal lease between you and the owner of the
    property since 31st May 2002. You were informed on 7th June 2002 that
  we were the new landlords having purchased the property. You have
  continued occupancy subject to a monthly tenancy. You were requested
  many times by us and the previous owner to formalise a lease
  relationship yet you have not done so.


2. On the 13th July 2004, as contained in your letter dated this day you
  agreed to pay a flat monthly rent of $10,000.00 + GST per month from
  19th March 2004 to 19th SEPT. 2005 being 18 months at $11,000 pcm
  equaling $198,000.00. You have deposited to our account 8 installments
  of $ 6,149.00 equaling $49,192.00 plus amount paid to P.R.D $11,709.46
  making in total $60,901.46. Therefore, you are in arrears of $137,098.54
  for the period from 19th March 2004 to 19 July 2005.


    In addition, you encroached upon areas not the subject of your
    occupancy not only without the consent of the previous owner but also
    ourselves. When we became the owners of the property the
    encroachment was drawn to your attention by letter, email and
    photographs. A demand was made to you whereby you agreed to pay
    us the sum of $500.00 per week for use of the encroached areas
    (referred to as areas A,B,C,D by you) which you have not paid. This
    amount is calculated from 7th June 2002 to 7th July 2005 being 36
    months at $2,500.00 +GST equaling $2450.00 pcm and in total
    $88,200.00.
3. ou continue not to pay rent despite frequent requests to do so which in
  total amounts to $2225,298.54 up to 19 SEPT 2005.
4. Further, we have brought to your attention many times that you have
  failed to maintain the premises in a clean, safe and orderly manner. For
    example, you have stored your garbage in the areas not the subject of
    your occupancy. However you continue to ignore our requests. Because
    of your misuse we have been penalized by the Gold Coast City Council.
    We have also received advices from our insurers concerning the
    detrimental effect to our insurance coverage when they ascertained that
    you store inflammable substances on the premises.
In these circumstances we hereby give you notice to vacate the premises on
or before but no later than 28th August 2005 failing which we will without
further notice to you commence proceedings to regain possession of the
leasehold.
In addition, we hereby demand that you pay all rent due and owing as
described above in the sum of $203,298.54 within 14 days or we will
commence recovery proceedings without further notice to you.
Now since 31st May to 2002 to 19 March 2004 you have done too much loss. After
receiving this letter of 13th July 2004, Dayal Mansukhani, told you that the old matter
was still pending but allowed you to continue.
                                         Molectra
                 DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
22/04/2005                                                           $6,149.00
                 TECHNOLMOLECTRA TECHNOLOG
                DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
28/02/2005                                                           $6,149.00
                TECHNOLMOLECTRA TECHNOLOG
                DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
31/01/2005                                                           $6,149.00
                TECHNOLMOLECTRA TECHNOLOG
                DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
2/12/2004                                                            $6,149.00
                TECHNOLMOLECTRA TECHNOLOG
                DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
23/12/2004                                                           $6,149.00
                TECHNOLMOLECTRA TECHNOLOG
                DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
27/10/2004                                                           $6,149.00
                TECHNOLMOLECTRA CHNOLOG
               DIRECT CREDIT MOLECTRA
8/07/2004                                                            $6,149.00
               TECHNOLMOLECTRA CHNOLOG
You are not paying rent in time and properly. This has been instructed to you
frequently.

It is noticed that you have not maintained the premises as that you have breached the
clause 7 directly so many times. It is to your notice this clause is mandatory.

 The following picture is taken at the time when Molectra(RCO) took the possession
 of the land. We want the land cleaned like it was at the time of taking the position.




And the First plaintiff claims against the 3 defendants:

1)   Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount of $150,000.00

      e) From 3 years misused the property in illegal manner, if there was a right
         solicitor then the first month itself the defendants would be in breach and
         according to the market valuation $ 100 m2, plaintiffs would have earned
         the above claimed amount till now.
      f) In august plaintiff had plans for further development of the property and if
         this plan would have been processed then plaintiffs would had been earning
         what is claimed above. But due to misuse of the property and excessive
         usage of the areas of the property the plaintiffs have suffered enormously.
       g) Damage to the property’s common parking areas and private areas of the
          land. Due to the property misuse no new tenants took interest in leasing out
          the property Unit No. 4 which was vacated from approx 14 months.

2) An order for immediate Eviction.

3) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary damages.
Issued them several notices via email and faxes but they have remained in constant
breach, instead of remedying.

5) Case no. 134/2005 for defamation filed on first plaintiff when defendants are and
were torturing the first plaintiff.

4) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

5) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal notices with threat of going to court, while they remained in
breach.


And the Second plaintiff claims against the 3 defendants:

1)    Compensatory damages for the losses suffered in the amount of $150,000.00

     a) Suffered heart pain several times due to the torture and harassment caused and
     on 15th November 2004 heart operation.

     b) harassment by giving phone calls to take pictures and then pose for it, with
     declaration that no one will support me, as I am not a Australia resident.

     c) Pictures prove their several attempts to torture the second plaintiff by each time
     inviting for pictures. The above claim is very very minimal to the harassment the
     second plaintiff has overcome.

3) Damages in the sum of $ 100,000 for the aggravated and /or exemplary damages.
Being on business category, had to engage myself in business but lost my entire life
saving - capital and overseas capital.

4) Second plaintiff arranged overseas finance for this property. Due to the illegal
torture by the defendants, second plaintiff could not do anything. Second defendants
had taken contract of the property maintenance and had prepared plan for its new
expansion. Which was not successful instead suffered bad debts.

5) Moreover case no. 134/2005 for defamation. When defendants are and were
torturing the second plaintiff.

4) Interest pursuant to s47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

5) Costs on indemnity basis or alternatively on standard basis, for the mental torture
and could not concentrate on my own personal issues and businesses. Also,
Defendants issued illegal notices with threat of going to court, while they remained in
breach.


First Plaintiff: For GoodLuck Holdings Pty Ltd.
Dayal Mansukhani
Second plaintiff: Dayal Mansukhani

								
To top