This tag is associated with 4 posts

the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with =In any event, taking into consideration the nature of allegations wherein the question of identity of the accused does not arise, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates the learned trial Judge insists for the same and the petitioners shall be properly represented through their counsel.

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICERAJA ELANGO   CRIMINAL PETITION No.173 of 2012   ORDER:           Petitioners approached this Court invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2.  Heard both sides. 3. The complainant approached the Court below … Continue reading

No arrest of accused in matrimonial cases for the welfare of the family=since the offences arose out of matrimonial disputes, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners are arrested, it may cause prejudice in case there is any proposal for settlement between the parties in future.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICERAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.256 OF 2012   ORDER:     The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.3 of 2011 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.   Heard.   … Continue reading

admissibility of a document in criminal procedings=During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered the certified copy of agreement, dated 30.04.2004. The petitioners raised objection for marking the said document. The learned Magistrate, on considering the objections raised by the petitioners and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to over-rule the objections and permitted the complainant to mark the certified copy of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004, by order, dated 25.11.2011. =i have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners herein in C.C.No.77 of 2006, copy of which has been placed on placed on record at page No.13 of the material papers. It is stated in the memo that the petitioners herein admitted of their signatures in the 1st page of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004. Such is the memo., the observation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be without any basis. No valid ground has been made out to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in C.C.No.77 of 2006.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY   Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012   Date:24th January, 2012     Between: Lucky Enterprises rep. by its Prop:Manderapu Venkata Ramayya (A1) & Anr.                                                                               ….. Petitioners AND   The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents   ***   THE HON’BLE … 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

  • 2,903,093 hits



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

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com