This tag is associated with 5 posts

Hindu marriage Act sec.13(1) (ia) – mere obtaining restitution of conjugal rights is not a ground for Divorce , when wife not complied with it – Best piece of Evidence of Children about the cruel attitude of father is enough for not granting the Divorce to the Husband against the wife – New tendency of husbands in obtaining restitution of conjugal rights and keeping clam for considerable period and finally filing divorce petition – is to be discourgeable – Husband failed to prove cruelty – Lower court wrongly placed reliance on Restitution of conjugal rights – hence set aside – Appeal was allowed = V.Alivelu Mangas Devi V,Venkata Laskshmi Narasimha Palla Rao = published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10629

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL C.M.A.No.752 of 2013 28-11-2013 V.Alivelu Mangas Devi V,Venkata Laskshmi Narasimha Palla Rao !Counsel for the AppellantSri Subba Rao Counsel for Respondent: Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy <Gist >Head Note: ?Cases Referred; JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The marriage between the appellant … Continue reading

the damages/compensation cannot be claimed against the State. ? =Whether the death of son of plaintiff was due to want of care, negligence and callousness of defendants as pleaded by plaintiffs?- Whether there is any bar in law, prohibiting award of damages, on account of the death of a soldier or seaman, if it is proved that the death occurred under mysterious circumstances? = if the negligence or want of proper care on the part of State is proved, the tortious liability to pay damages/compensation would arise and the same needs to be treated as constitutional tort. No decided case is cited as to how a State can claim immunity from the obligation to compensate the dependants of its employee, if it is proved that the death occurred on account of its negligence and lack of proper care. The point is answered accordingly. REPORTED/ PUBLISHED http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9823

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Appeal Suit No.3504 of 2004 04.04.2013 Union of India and another. Ashok Narayan Paldhe and others. Counsel for appellants: Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Counsel for Respondents : Sri Sunil Ganu <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred 2004 (1) ALD 19 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble … Continue reading

DECLARATION SUIT AND INJUNCTION – ARBITRATION ACT SEC. 8 = Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. PRIMA FAICE IS MAINTAINABLE = It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. As a matter of fact, the defendants wanted them to vacate the premises. Till the question raised in the suit is decided, they are entitled to be in possession, subject however to payment of rents.As a result, the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the respective suits are allowed and the respective defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs or evicting them from the suit schedule premises, subject, however, to the condition that the rent shall be paid with enhancement at 10% over and above what is provided for under the lease deeds from January 2013 onwards. The difference of rent, if any in, this behalf, shall be paid within four (4) weeks from today. The payment of extra amount shall be subject to the outcome of the suits. ;WHEN REFERRING ARBITRATION AROSE & WHEN SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE = Law is also fairly well settled to the effect that if the agreement governing relationship of the parties contains a clause providing for arbitration, a suit for seeking redressal in relation to any dispute covered by the agreement cannot be maintained and it stands barred by Section 8 of the Act. However, a keen observation of the clause extracted above reveals that it is only when the dispute or question of difference arises out of, or in respect of, those presents or as to the construction, meaning or the subject matter of the lease presents or as to any act done or omitted to be done under the lease or the rights, duties and liabilities of the respective parties, referable to the agreement, that the matter shall be referred to arbitration. – no application was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. They did not make any counter claim in the suit nor did they file any suit for reference of the matter to arbitration. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court, referring the matter to arbitration cannot be sustained in law. The termination of the suit does not accord with the procedure prescribed under C.P.C. A decree could not have been passed outside the prayer in the suits.; ORDERS WHICH ARE dependant’ in nature and the challenge thereto cannot be rejected, on the ground that the suit itself stood terminated. That was a case, in which the delay in filing of appeal was condoned and the effected party challenged the order passed by the Court condoning the delay. Even while the proceedings, in which the order condoning delay was challenged, were pending, the appeal that came to be numbered was disposed of. An objection was raised to the effect that once the appeal has been disposed of, it is not at all open to the parties to challenge the order, through which the delay was condoned. This contention was negatived and the Hon’ble Supreme Court treated such appeals as ‘dependant’ upon the order, condoning the delay being sustained, whenever challenged. The same situation obtains in this case. REPORTED/PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9751

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.M.A.Nos.126 of 2012 and Batch 03.04.2013 M/s. Ashok International rep., by its Managing Director. State of A.P. and others. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Arbitration <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT … Continue reading

discharge of accused =Though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report, no specific overt act is attributed against him in the complaint. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not disclose that the petitioner was present either at the scene of occurrence or he participated in the crime, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that pending of the case against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2275 of 2011   ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.10.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2011 in S.C.No.147 of 2011 on the file of the III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, … Continue reading

agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY   A.S.No.1014 of 2010   JUDGMENT:   The parties hail from a scheduled area in East Godavari District.  The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 before the Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Kakinada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,468 hits



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

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com