Posts

Showing posts from 2012

It is true that a third party can resist the delivery of possession in the execution proceedings whether at the stage of attachment or under Rule - 58 or delivery of possession by establishing independent title by filing applications under Rule-58 or 99, as the case may be, of Order-XXI CPC. Filing of independent suits is also prohibited in matters of this nature. A slightly different approach becomes necessary where the person in possession of the property claims the right under a separate agreement of sale. The agreement of sale by itself does not confer title upon such person. However, he would not have a right to take the plea under Section 53-A of the TP Act, whenever steps are initiated for recovery of possession against him, either by the original owner or any person claiming through him. It becomes highly doubtful whether the adjudication on the touchstone of Section 53-A of the TP Act can be undertaken in an application filed under Rule - 97 or 99 of Order-XXI CPC. Though from the point of view of the decree holder, it may be the controversy pertaining to execution of the decree, it would be evident that from the point of view of a third party, his rights are to be adjudicated vis--vis the person who executed the agreement of sale in his favour or anyone, claiming through him. The truth or otherwise of the agreement of sale needs to be examined. 10. Identity of the property is another question. Even before the suit for specific performance was filed, the appellant had initiated steps against the predecessor of the respondents. That, however, was not taken to the logical conclusion. In this scenario, the appellant could not have dispossessed the respondents. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and allowed the application.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

SECOND APPEAL No.1338 of 2004    

22-12-2011

Ahmed Shah Khan  

Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum @ Sultana and others  

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. M.A. Basith

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Pandu Ranga Rao

? Cases referred
AIR 1978 SUPRME COURT 1393    

JUDGMENT:  
        The appellant filed O.S.No.3690 of 1993 in the Court of the VI Junior
Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of specific performance
of an agreement of sale against the 7th respondent herein in respect of 150
square yards of land in Survey No.284 of 2011, Gudimalkapur.  It was pleaded
that the 7th respondent executed an agreement of sale on 23-01-1976, delivered
possession of the plot, but did not execute the sale deed inspite of repeated
requests.  The suit was decreed on 20-08-1997.  The appellant filed EP No.161 of
1999 for execution of the decree.  Since the 7th respondent did not come forward
to execute the sale deed, the Court itself…

Under Clause (i) of Section 60 CPC, the lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation etc., belonging to the judgment debtor are liable for attachment. Sub-clause (i) of proviso to Section 60 CPC exempts from attachment, salary to the extent of Rs.1,000/- and two-thirds of the remainder in execution of a decree other than the decree for maintenance. This provision is subject to the proviso incorporated in the said sub-clause. Rule 48 of Order XXI CPC deals with attachment of salary or allowances of servants of the Government or Railway Company or local authority. Clause (1) of Rule 48 enables attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the government or a servant of a railway company or of a local authority or of a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, and of a Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the provisions of Section 60 CPC. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Rule 48 envisages that where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which CPC for the time being extends, officer or other person whose duty is to disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the order or the monthly instalments, as the case may be.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PEITITON No. 3804 OF 2011    

04-11-2011

Nanduri Satyanarayana Raju

Golla Subba Rao and another

Counsel for the petitioner:  Sri V. Raghu

Counsel for respondent No.1:  Sri M.K. Raj Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.2:  Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari


>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

ORDER:

Order dated 06-06-2011 in E.A No. 37 of 2011 in E.P No. 90 of 2008 in O.S No.
175 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kodad is questioned
in this civil revision petition.
The petitioner is the decree holder who obtained decree against respondent No.1
for recovery of certain amounts. 
 Respondent No.1 is the employee of Bharat
Sanchar Nigal Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL') working under the
administrative control of the General Manager, Telecom District, Vijaywada,
Krishna District.  
Respondent No.2 is the salary disbursing officer of
respondent No.1.  
The petitioner filed E.P No. 90 of 2008 for …

Whether the condition imposed relating to the deposit of 1/4th of decretal amount and suit costs by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Kakinada has to be confirmed, or to be disturbed or to be modified, in the facts and circumstances of the case while setting aside the exparte decree ?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA      

CMA No.972 OF 2010  

04.12.2012    

Sundarapati Balu s/o. Sundara Pande

Kamadi Ganga Raju s/o. Sathi Raju

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao

Counsel for Respondent: Ms. N.P.Anjana Devi

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Referred Cases:
2009 (5) ALD 110.

JUDGMENT:  

This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No.282 of 2007 on the file of
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, assailing the condition imposed by
the trial Court, while allowing the application which is filed under Order 9
Rule 13 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set-aside the ex
parte decree dated 26.09.2007, by order dated 20th February, 2009 in I.A. No.684
of 2008.

2.      The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the
plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.282 of 2007.  The suit is filed for recovery of
amount.  The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the
interlocutory application.

3.      The petitioner…

ordered for reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages.- is the envelope through which Ex.W4 dated January 27, 2001 was dispatched and it bears the postal receipt issued by Ambattur Post Office at Chennai. It is evident from this postal receipt that the Post Office collected Rs.19/- for this registered letter and it was booked on 22.02.2001 at 13:42:34 Hours. The cover was weighing 20 gms and addressed to Vijayawada, Pin : 52001. It is baffling to note that a communication signed by the Managing Director of a company on 27.1.2001 took such a long time of more than three weeks to be put into transmission by the petitioner company. For the extraordinary litigative zeal exhibited all through by the petitioner company, thus denying the legitimate benefits to the two workmen for over a decade, I consider that it is only appropriate that this writ petition should be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to each of the two workmen. Fifteen days time is granted for depositing the costs with Registrar (Judicial), who upon such deposit being made by the petitioners would pass on the same to the workmen by transfer or by payment by way of crossed Demand Draft.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE  NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO          

WRIT PETITION NO. 22547 OF 2003  

03-12-2012

Kone Elevator India Private Limited rep. By Mr.V.Gopalan, Assistant Branch
Manager, Chennai

1.The Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur
2.P.Ravi Sankar Rao and 2 others

WRIT PETITION NO. 22559 OF 2003  

Kone Elevator India Private Limited rep.By Mr.V.Gopalan, Assistant Branch
Manager, Chennai                                        ..      Petitioner
And
1.The Presiding Officer,The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur
2.M.Balkishan  and   2 others      Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C.R.Sridharan

Counsel for the respondents     :GP for Labour Sri M. Pitchaiah

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:
1. (1990) 4 SCC 27
2. (2007) 1 SCC 610
3. (2003) 5 SCC 455
4. (2002) III  LLJ 160 (Madras)
5. (2008) 12 SCC 481
6. (2008) 9 SCC 486
7. (2010) 1 SCC 142
8. (1990) 2 SCC 715 (para 35)
9. (1979) 2 SCC 80
10. AIR 1980 SC 1896(1) (paras 143…