Posts

Showing posts from September, 2012

DVC retrospective - None of the reliefs claimed in D.V.C. No.8 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent can be called crimes. Though, the Act empowers a Magistrate to entertain the complaint of an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act and makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to make enquiry of the same under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are in the nature of civil reliefs only. It is only violation of order of the Magistrate which becomes an offence under Section 31 of the Act and which attracts penalty for breach of protection order by any of the respondents. Similarly Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for discharging duty by Protection Officer. Except under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act which occur in Chapter V, all the reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Act are not offences and enquiry of rights of the aggrieved person under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act cannot be termed as trial of a criminal case.Further, this Court in Sikakollu Chandra Mohan v Sikakollu Saraswati Devi by order dated 06.07.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.1093 of 2010 held that it cannot be said that provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in case separation between the parties was prior to the Act coming into force. Therefore, contention of the petitioners fails. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU            

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5921 of 2012  

13.08.2012

Gundu Chandrasekhar and others

1. The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,And another

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Gaddam Srinivas

Counsel  for the Respondents:  Additional Public Prosecutor

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

  2009(1) ALT (Cri)-285

ORDER:


The petitioners 1 to 3 are husband and parents-in-law of the 2nd
respondent/aggrieved person in D.V.C.No.8 of 2011 of the lower Court.  The 2nd
respondent filed D.V.C. claiming several reliefs including reliefs of protection
order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief under
Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from  
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act).  The petitioners' counsel
contended that even as per allegations in the complaint, disputes for the
aggrieved person with the petitioners were in the year 2002 and …

the insurance police is a comprehensive policy and covers the risk of damage to the vehicle insured as also risk coverage to 10 persons in all. Though it is not stated that the claimant who travelled in the jeep in question on the fateful day is a family member of the owner of the jeep nor the driver of the jeep, but was a third person. But it is not the case of either the insurance company or anybody else that the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger or was a fare paid passenger or for reward. Inasmuch as the policy being a comprehensive policy and covers the risk of 10 persons in all, it cannot be said that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the claimant who was travelling in the jeep in question. When once the policy being a comprehensive policy and covers the risk of ten persons, not being gratuitous passengers or fare paid passengers or for reward, the claimant being none of them, can be one of the ten persons covered under the comprehensive policy. In the absence of any evidence adduced that the jeep in question was used for hire or reward contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the claimant. 4. Therefore, I am of view that the Tribunal below erroneously exonerated the liability of the 3rd respondent-insurance company from paying the compensation awarded jointly and severally.

HON'BLE  SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH      

CMA No.2701 OF 2003  

02-08-2012

Yeduwaka Thata Babu  

Allu Prasad, S/o.Appalanaidu others

!Counsel for the Appellant   Jayanti S.C. Sekhar

Counsel for the respondent No.3:   Mr. R.K. Suri

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

JUDGMENT ::  (  per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah,J )


The claimant is the appellant herein filed OP No.524 of 1997 on the file of
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram,
claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by in the
accident on 25-2-1997 while he was travelling in a jeep bearing registration
No.AP 31E 8568 driven by its driver  in a rash and negligent manner and the said
jeep hitting a tree and turned turtle.
2.      The Tribunal below considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
jeep in question by its driver who is respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2

whether the presence of the petitioner is necessary for grant of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, as he is presently residing in UK. He along with the respondent, who is his wife, presented an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, on 21.04.2011. After expiry of the statutory minimum period of six months, the case was posted on 31.12.2011. On the said date, the respondent and the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner were present. The affidavit of the petitioner herein was also filed. However, the lower Court has adjourned the case to 21.01.2012 with the direction to the petitioner to attend the Court on the said date. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction for personal presence of the petitioner, he filed the present civil revision petition. = In the instant case, the petitioner expressed his inability to be personally present as he is living in UK. There does not appear to be any objection from the respondent’s side for grant of divorce. As held by the Division Bench, unless there are suspicious circumstances or any reason to think that the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner may not be true, there is no reason for the lower Court to order personal presence of the petitioner. As noted above, the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner is pursuing the case and therefore, there is no requirement for the petitioner being personally present for disposal of the joint application filed for divorce.

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY          

Civil Revision Petition No.875 of 2012

19.03.2012

Sri S.B.Tirumal Raj

Smt.Lakshmi Prasanna  

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri J.A.Qureshi

Counsel for the respondent: ---

< Gist:

> Head note:

? Cases referred:
1995(3) ALD 341 (DB)

ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 31.12.2011, in
O.P.No.619 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.
Even though notice was served on the respondent and acknowledgement in proof
thereof is filed by the petitioner's counsel along with memo, dated 09.03.2012,
no one entered appearance for the respondent.
The short issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is
whether the presence of the petitioner is necessary for grant of divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').  The
petitioner is represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, as he is
presently residing in UK. …

regularise the services of the applicant/first respondent notionally w.e.f. 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994.- the regularization of the daily wage employees cannot be made with retrospective effect, but they are entitled to be considered as per the scheme of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and G.O.P No. 112 dated 23.7.1997 for regularization from the date of issuance of the regularization order but not with retrospective effect i.e., from 25.11.1993. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed holding that the first respondent is entitled for regularization of his services from the date of issuance of the regularization order i.e., proceedings in R.O.C. No. 4598/2002/C1 dated 19.11.2010 but not with retrospective effect i.e., from 25.11.1993. No costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI                

WRIT PETITION No.30408 of  2011  

06-08-2012

The Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada.

Medachinni Sitaramulu and others.

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Nageswara Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri B. Kamalakar Rao

Counsel for Respondent No.2 :  G.P. for Services-I.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1. (2009) 8 SCC 480
2. (2009) 8 SCC 431

JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah)

        This writ petition is filed by the Commissioner of Gudivada Municipality,
Krishna District, assailing the order dated 13.6.2011 in O.A. No. 5463 of 2011
on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hydrabad (for short the
Tribunal).  The Original Application filed by the first respondent is allowed by
the Tribunal directing the respondents therein to regularise the services of the
applicant/first respondent notionally w.e.f. 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No. 212
dated 22.4.19…

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 However, once it has emerged that there existed attachment and proceedings have also taken place, he has to take recourse to law to establish his rights and the filing of the suit by the petitioner was a step in that direction. When there are so many complications surrounding the land, be it as regards attachment or the consequential sale, the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The question as to whether respondent No.6 held any land exclusively by herself, can certainly be examined in the pending suit. So is the case with the question as to the legality or otherwise of the sale in favour of respondent No.6. In case the petitioner is successful in the suit, the entries can certainly be made in his favour. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order under challenge, but directing that issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land in question shall await the outcome of O.S.No16 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

Writ Petition No.24715 of 2012

09.08.2012

R. Siva Ramakrishna

The state of Andhra Pradesh and others

Council for the Petitioner: Sri G. Manohar

Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Citations:

ORDER:

The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.23 cents of land, comprising
different sub-divisions of Survey No.20 of Koppaka Village, Anakapalli Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District through a sale deed, dated 28.03.2007, from
Smt.Kandregula Kanayamma, respondent No.7 herein, and her children. It is stated
that Ac.0.60 cents of that land was purchased by Kanayamma through sale deeds of
the years 1968 and 1972 with her stridhana property, and the balance of Ac.0.63
cents, which was purchased by her husband, Sri K.Pothuraju, has devolved upon
her and her children on the death of Pothuraju. The petitioner was issued
pattadar pass book and title deed and his name was also entered in the revenue
records. Sri Sa…

under Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the plaintiff can be permitted to amend the relief for refund of earnest money at any stage. Section.22(2) of the said Act reads as under:- "Section.22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc., (1).......................... (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief."However, it is to be noted that the provision under Section 22(2) of the Act is a special provision and it gives the power of amendment at any stage of the proceedings"The proviso to sub-clause (5) of section 21 is clear and unambiguous and enables the plaintiff to seek the amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceeding. The object obviously is to avoid multiplicity of suits. The expression "at any stage" in it means without limitation either in the frequency or duration or length of time. The question of applying the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act in a case where the amendment of the plaint is sought either under sub-clause (5) of section 21 or sub-clause (2) of section 22 of the Act does not arise. A specific relief is an equitable remedy and the Courts are competent to grant the relief sought for or other specific remedies which are incidental. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some cases the contract becomes unenforceable and the party suffers some loss. In such a case, it is open for the party to ask for damages in the alternative in the same suit and Section21 of the Act provides for the same".

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO            

SECOND APPEAL NO.244 OF 2011      

29-08-2012

Padam Satyanarayana  

Smt.Ravula Varalakshmi and others

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K.Chidambaram

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana  

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.  1997-LAWS (PAT)-3-52
2.  AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 2897
3. 1984 (1) An.W.R.336

JUDGMENT:-  

The defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1994 on the file of the court of Senior Civil
Judge, Kovvur is the appellant herein.

02.     The suit was one filed for specific performance of contract of sale
contending inter alia that the defendant has entered into an agreement of sale
on 17-12-1993 and first plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1,15,000/- and the
balance of Rs.10,000/- is agreed to be paid by 17-03-1994. In case of default,
interest shall be paid @ 18%. After the said transaction, as there was an offer
for higher price, the defendant has issued a notice on 18-12-1993 with false
allegations …

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for shortquashment of First Information Report in Crime No.353 of 2009 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, whereunder case was registered under Section 354 IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for short). Be that as it is, for the reasons already set out, the 2nd respondent failed to make out a prima facie case either for the offence under Section 354 IPC or for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Consequently, the private complaint is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint in Crime No.353 of 2009 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, so far as the accused 1, 3 and 4, who are the petitioners herein, stands quashed. Be that as it is, for the reasons already set out, the 2nd respondent failed to make out a prima facie case either for the offence under Section 354 IPC or for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Consequently, the private complaint is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint in Crime No.353 of 2009 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, so far as the accused 1, 3 and 4, who are the petitioners herein, stands quashed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR      

Criminal Petition No.10914 of 2009

23-8-2012

J.Chinna @ Naresh Kumar and 2 others

The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad and Yellia ... Respondent De facto Complainant

Counsel for Petitioners:  Sri A.Prabhakar Rao

Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.

Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri G.Ashok Kumar Reddy

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
   Nil.

Order:

        The petitioners seek for the quashment of First Information Report in
Crime No.353 of 2009 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad,
whereunder case was registered under Section 354 IPC as well as under Sections 3 
and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for short).  The petitioners are the accused 1,
3 and 4.  The 2nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant.  He is said to
be watchman of the building where the incident a…

the pendency of a civil suit is no bar for criminal proceedings.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is purely a civil dispute and that the FIR consequently is liable to be quashed. As rightly submitted by Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor, the pendency of a civil suit is no bar for criminal proceedings. The 2nd respondent initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 427, 454 and 506 IPC. The dispute, as already pointed out by me, can be resolved through evidence only. Consequently, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR      

Criminal Petition No.10815 of 2009

23-8-2012

Rakesh Gupta and another      

State of AP, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad,
Through Station House Officer, Mahankali PS, Secunderabad
P.N.M.Raju, Holding GPA on behalf of N.Suryanarayana Raju De facto Complainant

Counsel for Petitioners:  Smt. Pushpinder Kaur

Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, Rep.the
Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.

Counsel for the 2nd respondent: None

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
   Nil.

Order:

        The 2nd respondent was served with notice, but no one appeared for the 2nd
respondent.  This petition is disposed of without hearing the 2nd respondent.
The petitioners, who are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.274 of 2009 on the file
of Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad, seek for the quashment of the FIR.
The 2nd respondent laid a complaint before the Police alleging that the
petitioners have been interferin…

A.P. Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'),The interests of the petitioners can be protected by restricting the scope of examination of the matter by the 2nd respondent to the one of identification of the land and whether ryotwari pattas were granted in respect of the lands in the immediate neighbourhood of the land, which is the subject- matter of these proceedings.

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY          

WRIT PETITION No.26480 OF 2010  

08.09.2012

Indukuri Anil and others and

The Commissioner (Appeals) and others.

Counsel for petitioners:        Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy

Counsel for Respondents :  GP for REvenue

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

ORDER:

        The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2010, passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in a revision
filed under Section 7(d) of the A.P. Estates Abolition (Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), in so far as it has remanded the
matter to the Joint  Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd
respondent herein.

        Briefly stated, the facts that gave rise to the filing of the writ
petition are:

        The land in old survey No.3 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam Urban
Mandal, admeasuring Acs.66.60 cents, was part of Zamindari estate of the
Vizianagaram Zamindar. The es…

On the facts of the present case, when the assessee filed a defective return, and did not rectify the defects which were pointed out by the I.T.O., the assessing officer was bound to treat the return of income as invalid and take further proceedings on the footing that the assessee had failed to furnish the return. The assessing authority could not have proceeded to make ex parte assessment under Section 144 without serving notice under Section 139 (2) or as the case may be under Section 148.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO                        

I.T.T.A.No.34 of 2000

21.08.2012

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad.

M/s.Bake Food Products (P) Ltd., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for Appellant: Sri S.R.Ashok

Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent: Sri V.Srinivas

? Cases referred
[1] (2004) 3 S.C.C. 488

JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao):  

  This appeal is filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Revenue challenging the order
dated 24-04-2000 in I.T.A.No.1699/Hyd/95 (Hyderabad 'A' Bench).
2. The facts giving rise in filing of this appeal are as under:
(a) The respondent/assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year
1986-1987 on 30-06-1986 admitting a loss of Rs.16,27,167/-.  Notice under
Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued fixing the date of hearing on 01…

"The assignment of a promissory note by the payee is a part of the "cause of action" within the meaning of S.20 (c), C.P.C. and the assignee can sue on it in the Court having jurisdiction where the assignment took place:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO            

SECOND APPEAL NO.598 OF 2011      

24-08-2012

M.R.Venu

Smt.Veluchuri Lakshmi and others

Counsel for the Appellant :      Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy

Counsel for the Respondent:      Sri Ravi Cheemalapati

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1.AIR 2005 A.P. 37
2.AIR 1958 A.P. 451
3.1969 An.W.R. 222
4.AIR 1966 A.P. 334
5. 2010 (5) ALT 96 (D.B)
6.AIR 1917 MADRAS 221  

JUDGMENT:-  

        The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.119 of 1994 on the file of the Court
of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is the appellant herein.

02.     The suit was one filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,800/- alleging that
the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 06-09-1992 and executed a
promissory note in favour of one Laxmi Narsu who in turn transferred the
promissory note on      06-11-1993 for consideration in favour of the first
plaintiff at Srungavarapu Kota.

03.     The defendant claimed that he did not borrow any amount from…