seeking relaxation of the condition with regard to the deposit of passport - It is a matter of record that the petitioner is the Managing Director and whereas the 2nd respondent/complainant is the Chairman of the company. There are various disputes between them with regard to the increase of authorized share capital and allotment of shares. The petitioner deposited the passport in compliance of the conditions imposed on him by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as per orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2012. Since the petitioner intends to go to Singapore on business work, his passport is necessarily required to be released to him. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the passport for limited period.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.463 of 2013


ORDER:


        This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking relaxation of the condition with regard to the deposit of passport as ordered by IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2012.

2.     Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

3.     It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has to go to Singapore on business work and therefore, the passport, which has been deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court is required to be returned.  According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner has to go to Singapore on 5th February, 2013 and he is likely to return to India on 10th March, 2013.

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner intends to go to Singapore to manipulate the accounts of the company.

5.     It is a matter of record that the petitioner is the Managing Director and whereas the 2nd respondent/complainant is the Chairman of the company.  There are various disputes between them with regard to the increase of authorized share capital and allotment of shares.  The petitioner deposited the passport in compliance of the conditions imposed on him by the learned           IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as per orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2012.  Since the petitioner intends to go to Singapore on business work, his passport is necessarily required to be released to him.  In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the passport for limited period.

6.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to take back the passport deposited by him in compliance of the condition imposed on him in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2012 so as to enable him to go to Singapore and he has to redeposit the same on returning to India on or before 12th March, 2013.

 

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:28th January, 2013.

 

Note:

Issue C.C. by day-after tomorrow.

B/O

cs


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition No.463 of 2013

 

 

 

 

Date:28th January, 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.