advocatemmmohan
Hyderabad India
advocate commissioner to examine the witness closed with out result ?=From a perusal of docket order, dated 25.01.2011, it appears, the said order was passed on the statement made by the Commissioner, who appeared in person, to the effect that the petitioner is not cooperating to execute the warrant. Whether the Commissioner was given any further date to record the evidence after 19.11.2010 is a matter, which is not considered by the Court below. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that further dates were given by the Advocate Commissioner, as much as the same is not considered by the Court below, I am of the view that that it is a fit case to reconsider the matter afresh by the Court below. Accordingly, docket order, dated 25.01.2011, is set aside on condition of petitioner paying the Advocate Commissioner’s fee within a period of two (2) weeks from today to the Advocate Commissioner directly or depositing the same to the credit of O.S.No.125 of 2008. On such deposit, the Advocate Commissioner is entitled to withdraw the same. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, is directed to hear the learned counsel for both the parties, consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six (6) weeks from today.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1198 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by docket order, dated 25.01.2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, … Continue reading
“Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a Court. No person can be allowed to become a Judge in his own cause.”
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CCC APPEAL No.225 OF 2001 and bt 09-06-2011 Smt.Askari Begum and others Md.Ayaz Khan and others Counsicl of Petitioner:— Counsil for Respondent:– :JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of common property, which is a house property bearing No.22-3-908 situated at Vazir Ali lane, Darulshifa, Hyderabad, in an extent of … Continue reading
These 16 Company Petitions have been filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short, ‘the Act’), seeking for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation as approved by the shareholders of the petitioner companies. – From the material placed on record, the proposed scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy. None of the parties concerned have come forward to oppose the scheme.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition Nos.81 to 96 of 2011 Date:04th August, 2011 M/s.Dheeraj Developers Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office At Flat No.203, Regency House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, A.P. rep. by its Director Sri P.V.Raju …1st transferor Company/ Petitioner in C.P.No.81 of 2011 … Continue reading
The petitioners filed the present petition to quash the proceedings by contending that the first petitioner filed O.S.No.112 of 2004 for restitution of the conjugal rights against the daughter of the second respondent and the same is pending for trial. The first petitioner is ready to take back the daughter of the second respondent and he is not sending his daughter along with the first petitioner. The daughter of the second respondent filed Maintenance Case No.2 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad seeking maintenance and the Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month and during the course of examination, she admitted that there is no demand of dowry by the first petitioner. The second respondent also filed a private complaint against the petitioners and five others under Section 498-A IPC and the same is numbered as C.C.No.885 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. The learned Magistrate taken the present case on file without taking into consideration of pendency of the case between the parties and other circumstances. The daughter of the second respondent is separately living since May 2004 and from then onwards, the first petitioner has not seen her in anywhere except in the Court. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file the present case. The petitioners 2 to 11 are living separate from 03.09.2004 and after partition they are no way concerned with the happenings between the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2006 10-04-2007 Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and 10 others The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Mohd. Raheem Khan Counsel for petitioners: Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: C. Nagender :ORDER: … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 