Skip to main content

A.P.H.C.CASE LAW - ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Search This Blog

WELCOME TO 2018

on January 01, 2018

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year.
God bless you all with great health, wealth and prosperity .
with regards
yours
advocatemmmohan

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

The question as to whether it is competent for the Municipal Corporation to insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from revenue authority is no longer res integra. In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad[1], this Court dealt with that very question and held that a local authority cannot insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5843 of 2012 Between : Gumma Jagannadha Rao … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5843 of 2012 ORDER : The petitioner intended to make construction of a residential house on house bearing H.No.12-10-664/A, on Plot No.14/A, in Survey No.167/1, situated at Indira Nagar Colony, Zamisthanpur , Sitafalmandi , Secunderabad .

RULE 32 OF CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE - POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - PLEADINGS OF SUBSISTING = whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, = it can be considered after taking evidence and while giving judgment as it is a question of fact ; It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting..... is it fatal = No.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9739 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P.No.5750 of 2002 25.03.2013 Ranga Lingaiah Sajjala Venkat Reddy Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri Aravinda Rao Verapally <Gist: >Head Note: ?CITATIONS: 1.2002 (6) ALD 101 ORDER The question whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, is a question of fact. If the Power of Attorney holder has known the facts relating to the suit personally, then he is always at liberty to give evidence either as Power of Attorney holder or in his personal capacity. The contention that Power of Attorney holder cannot depose the facts which are within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, who is his principal, depends upon the materia

Sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C = Even after disposal of SLP BY SUPREME COURT - High court has no power to review the judgment to give permission to compund the offence - Compounding of an offence after disposal of case does not arise under sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C.= Asi Balayya (A1)and others State of A.P.,rep. by P.P. and another= Reported in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=8168

Sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C = Even after disposal of SLP BY SUPREME COURT - High court has no power to review the judgment to give permission to compund the offence - Compounding of an offence after disposal of case does not arise under sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C.= = whether the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be reviewed at this stage and then the parties can be permitted to compound the offences. There is no provision which provides that such a composition can be done even after the final disposal of a criminal case which is covered by either clause (1) or clause (2). The overall reading of the provisions enumerated makes it very clear or implies that in order to compound an offence in a criminal case the basic rule is that it should be pending before the trial Court or the appellate Court or the revisional Court as the case may be. Clause (1) is to be read together with the other clauses with regards to the stage of compounding an offence, subject to

Powered by Blogger

copy rights reserved