//
archives

darsi

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Sec.302 , 498 A I.P.C = F.I.R. to sub inspector that accidentally sari caught with fire of stove = Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate revealed that husband burnt her alive by pouring kerosin = Explanation by parents that F.I.R. statement was given at the instance of accused sister = Conviction is proper = NANDEPU ABRAHAM Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. Respondent(s) = published in http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp

F.I.R. to sub inspector that accidentally sari caught with fire of stove = Dying declaration     recorded by Magistrate revealed that husband burnt her alive by pouring kerosin = Explanation by parents that F.I.R. statement was given at the instance of accused sister = Conviction is proper =   ‘ PW-8 N. Victor Immanuel, at … Continue reading

no counter claim of injunction is maintainable in a suit for partition =As long as the suit retains the character of one for partition, the grant of injunction would almost be an extraordinary phenomenon.=Assuming that there is no prohibition in law for filing of a counter claim for the relief of injunction in a suit for partition simplicitor, the person claiming must state the relevant facts that constitute the cause of action. It does not need any emphasis that the cause of action for claiming relief of injunction would be the acts of interference by the plaintiffs in the suit with the possession of the defendants making the counter claim. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.610 of 2010 or for that matter, the text, which is sought to be introduced, in the form of a counter claim, is blissfully silent as to the existence of cause of action. For all practical purposes, a counter claim is as good as a suit, and if no cause of action is stated in a suit, it deserves to be rejected. So is the case with the counter claim. It is not as if the filing of a suit by the appellant by itself would constitute the cause of action for filing of the counter claim. The order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

THE HON‘BLE MR JUSTICEL.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.382 of 2011 05.12.2011 Between: Kommireddy Linga Reddy and another Palgiri Anji Reddy andothers COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri Narasimhulu COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana ORDER: The petitioners herein filed O.S.No.232 of 2009 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, against respondents 2 to 4, their … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,865,287 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com