Posts

Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not. Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate. Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation. Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service. That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, when the police failed to act in the matter. I am, therefore, convinced that the entire exercise is an illegal one and hence, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.-2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports

Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not.  Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate.  Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation.  Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service.  That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, whe...
Read more

Or. VII, rule 11 of C.P.C.- Suit to set aside Lok Adalat on ground of fraud & collusion - Trial court returned the plaint as not maintainable - only remedy is to file writ - Their Lordship held that Whether or not the appellant is justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below. As the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable. The order under appeal is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud. The Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in accordance with law. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

They sought a decree in their favour, and against the defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S. No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy. Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants, employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties. = The Court below had rejected the plaint solely on the ground that a civil suit cannot be filed, and the plaintiffs remedy is only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
Read more

Or.XV-A of the Code - Suit for eviction and for arrears of rents - interim application for deposit of arrears of rents - before filing written statement ,basing on notices and exchange of notice - court allowed the same - when there is dispute about the arrears of rents - quantum of rent and before filing the written statement - as per sub rule 2 no petition be allowed and as such set aside the order and reopened the I.A.for fresh disposal - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The plaintiff / respondent herein filed the suit for eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit scheduled property and for delivering the vacant position thereof to her.  The plaintiff also prayed for a sum of Rs.54,41,874/- to be paid towards arrears of rent together with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the same is realized and also sought for future mesne profits.  The plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.315 of 2014 for a direction to the respondent to pay her an amount of Rs.52,79,713/- being the arrears of rent payable.  This I.A.No.315 of 2014 is moved in terms of and in accordance with Order-XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code).  That application is, now, ordered on 16-04-2015.   = Rule (1) clearly spelt out that the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount representing the undisputed arrears calculated up to that date i...
Read more

Sec.340 and 195 Cr.P.C. - application by Accused who convicted under Sec.376 & 506 I.P.C. - Acquitted under sec.201 I.P.C. - for prosecuting the prosecution agency - Sessions court dismissed the application - their lordship held that different statements at different stages of the case made by the public prosecutor would amount to any offence attracting the provision of Section 340 CrPC and By no stretch of imagination, can we say that the stand of a counsel, howsoever inconsistent it may be at different stages of the proceedings, can amount to offences adverted to under Section 195 CrPC. and like wise mere contradiction in evidence can amount to offences adverted to under sec.195 Cr.P.C. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The petitioner has been charge sheeted for offences under Section 376, 506 and 201 IPC and after a full fledged trial he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, but was acquitted of the offence under Section 201 IPC, by the Sessions Court. Pending Appeal against the Conviction - The above said accused filed an application  under sec.340 & 195 of Cr.P.C for prosecution of prosecuting agencies for the contradictions in the deposition run over. 1)      Take cognizance of this matter, conduct inquiries as required, give specific finding and register a criminal complaint with the appropriate investigating agency against the prospective accused as detailed in this application and deal with the matter as per law enshrined in Section 340 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. 2)      Call for the relevant General Diary, Case Diary and other records from CCS as this Honble Court deems necessary t...
Read more

Whether an interlocutory application is maintainable for permission of GPA to represent and depose on behalf of one of the party before the family court and any advocate of the choice of party to make available the skype facility for the court to interact with the party as he is in abroad - their lordships hled that Family Court to entertain the I.A. as it is maintainable and permit the GPA of the 2nd petitioner in O.P. to represent and depose on behalf of the 2nd petitioner in the O.P. and the Family Court shall also direct such GPA or any legal practitioner chosen by him to make available the skype facility for the Court to interact with the 2nd petitioner, who is staying at Melbourne, Australia and record the consent of 2nd petitioner and proceed with the matter thereafter as expeditiously as is possible.-2015 Telangana & A. P.msklawreports

The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is his wife.  Both of them have filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1547 of 2014 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of their marriage performed on 22.08.2010 by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.  The 1st petitioner in the O.P., who is the respondent herein, has been attending to the proceedings by appearing before the Family Court.  However, the father of the 2nd petitioner, who holds the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the 2nd petitioner/husband in the O.P., filed an interlocutory application bearing SR.No.2216 of 2015 on 09.04.2015 before the Family court to receive the chief affidavit of PW.2/petitioner No.2, duly dispensing with the personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court.   The 2nd petitioner has sworn to a detailed affidavit and got it notarized by a notary public of South Melbourne, Australia.   That interlocutory applicatio...
Read more

Refund of EMD Rs.50,000/- for rejecting his incomplete Tender who failed to mention monthly rent in application - Respondent forfeited the same - writ - their lordships held that forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is incomplete is highly irrational. Such an action causes double disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as the forfeiture of the EMD. - the impugned clause has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and the same constitutes patent arbitrariness. A Statutory Corporation, such as respondent No.1, cannot resort to unjust enrichment by stipulating such clauses.-respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- to thepetitioner - 2015 Telangana & A.P. 2015MSKLAWREPORT

   As the petitioner failed to mention the monthly rent against column No.4 of the tender form, his tender was not only rejected treating the same as invalid, but also the sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as EMD was forfeited by respondent No.2.  Aggrieved by the said forfeiture, the petitioner has filed W.P. The purpose of an EMD is to make the tenderer bound by the tender conditions and in the event of violation of the tender conditions the Corporation will recover the loss, if any, caused by such tenderer for his violation through forfeiture of EMD. The inevitable consequence of an incomplete tender is its rejection.  In my opinion, forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is incomplete is highly irrational.  Such an action causes double disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as the forfeiture of the EMD.   The respondents have not explained the rationale behind stipulating condition No.4(d). ...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more