//
archives

state of andhra pradesh

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Though the appellant is eligible for consideration of the selection in to IAS – she was denied as she was a junior officer – not correct approach and against the rules and guidelines – B. Amrutha Lakshmi … Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents= judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40890

Though the appellant is eligible for consideration of the selection in to IAS – she was  denied as she was a junior officer – not correct approach and against the rules and guidelines = Apex court held wrong but due to lapse of time the apex court granted damages instead of disturbing processes already taken over long … Continue reading

Custody of Child =no relief could be granted to the appellant in the present proceedings given her conduct in removing Anand from U.S.A. in defiance of the orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction. – the duty of Courts in all countries to see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of the country does not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing.= The facts narrated above would clearly indicate that the mother is singularly responsible for removal of the child from the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In view of the above, we are constrained to pass the following order:-= The directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order are upheld with the following additions and modifications:- Direction No.(iv) of the High Court shall be substituted by the following : “(iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the respondent No.7 and the child in suitable accommodation in a locality according to her status prior to the dissolution of marriage for a period of three months on their landing in USA.” Direction No.(vi) – Prior to making any travel arrangements for the 7th respondent and Anand, the petitioner shall move the Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA for withdrawal of the bailable warrants issued against the respondent No.7 to enable her to attend the custody proceedings in the US Courts. Direction No.(viii) – Upon the bailable warrants having been withdrawn, the petitioner shall personally escort respondent No.7 and Anand from India to the USA. 32. With these observations, the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the Criminal Appeals No.934-936 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10606-10608 of 2010 are hereby dismissed. 33. Before parting with this order, we may also notice here that the respondent (husband) filed a Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3335 of 2012, challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed earlier, the aforesaid order was passed in the criminal petition filed by the respondent husband, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the appellant/wife against the respondent himself and his parents under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since no arguments were advanced in the aforesaid matter, let this appeal be listed for arguments separately.

 published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40567  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.934-936 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10606-10608 of 2010) Arathi Bandi …Appellant VERSUS Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors. …Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3335 of 2012) Bandi Jagadrakshak Rao … Continue reading

SECOND MARRIAGE NOT A BAR IN ALLOWING SET ASIDE EXPARTE DIVORCE DECREE = = Order – IX Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree OF DIVORCE. Since there was delay of 153 days in filing it, she filed I.A No.480 of 2006.= The very fact that the proceedings are pending in the Courts at Raipur and Visakhapatnam, discloses that the relationship was not cordial and the acts resorted to by the respondent in obtaining the ex parte decree and then immediately contacting second marriage can not at all be countenanced, much less the Court can put a seal of approval upon it. Though the status of the second marriage contacted by the respondent may be at a stake, it cannot outwit the gross injustice done to the petitioner. 6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Surendra Kumar v. Kiran Devi1. It is difficult to treat that as a precedent for the proposition that whenever one of the spouses contacts second marriage, after obtaining a decree for divorce, the decree cannot be set aside thereafter. Further, in the instant case, the trial Court did not record any finding to the effect that the notice in the O.P. was served upon the petitioner. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the delay of 153 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree is condoned. Since the reasons that weigh with the Court for condonation of delay would hold good for setting aside the ex parte decree, the I.A. filed under Order – XXXIX Rule – 13 CPC was allowed. REPORTED/PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9784

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6034 OF 2010 03-04-2013 Smt. Rachokonda Parvathi W/o. Venkata Subrahmanyam Rachakonda Venkata Subrahmanyam S/o.late R. Venkata Ramana. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ravi Cheemalapati Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G. Ram Gopal <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred AIR 1997 Rajasthan 63 ORDER: Petitioner is the … Continue reading

unregistered sale deed= “collateral purpose” as under: “1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence for collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.”

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.176 of 2012 13.03.2012 Doma Govinda Raju and another Vanimisetti Papa Rao and others ^Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Govind Reddy !Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri S.Subba Reddy Cases referred? 1 (2008) 8 SCC 564 2 2006 (1) ALT 76 3 AIR 1942 Bombay 268 4 … Continue reading

the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India7, it cannot be said that judicial pronouncements made by Judges and Judicial Officers can be subjects for prosecuting those Judges or Judicial Officers in discharge of their judicial functions, particularly in any private complaint filed by the aggrieved party whether such aggrieved party is a party to those proceedings in which judicial pronouncements were rendered. 20. Section 77 IPC reads as follows: "77. Act of Judge when acting judicially.- Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law." Under this provision, no judicial act performed by a Judge can be an offence. For applicability of Section 77, the following ingredients are necessary: a) that the act was done by a Judge b) that the said act was done by the Judge when acting judicially and c) that it was done in exercise of any power which is given to the Judge by law (or) the said act was done by the Judge in good faith believing that the power was given to him by law.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1472 of 2010 17-09-2010 Tummala Lakshmana Rao Sri Sadhu Narayana and 7 others. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Thummala Lakshmana Rao (in person) Counsel for the respondents: Nil :ORDER: 1. The petitioner seeks to file this revision petition questioning order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Chief … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,910 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com