Posts

Showing posts from October, 2013

Railway tribunal not granted interest from the date of petition on the awarded compensation - Claimant is entitled for interest on the award from the date of presentation of petition= ARUNA SINHA AND 2 OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY GM, SC RLY, SECUNDERABAD. - http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=CMA&mno=686&year=2013

Railway tribunal not granted interest from the date of petition on the awarded compensation - Claimant is entitled for interest on the award from the date of presentation of petition= In the unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2009(arising out of SLP(Civil) No.26654 of 2008 dt.14.05.2009),  wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the amount awarded as compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Act shall carry interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition at 6% per annum and from the date of award, till the date of realisation at 9% per annum. CMA 686 / 2013

CMASR 26206 / 2008
PETITIONERRESPONDENTARUNA SINHA AND 2 OTHERS  VSUNION OF INDIA, REP.BY GM, SC RLY, SECUNDERABAD.PET.ADV. : KRISHNA PRASADRESP.ADV. : CHOWDARYSUBJECT: RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNALDISTRICT:  HYDERABADTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.686 of 2013
Date: 02.09.2013 Between: Aruna Sinha and two others.                    …

Sec.302 I.P.C. = The evidence of PWs. is quite contrary to the medical evidence. = THE STATE OF A.P. VS KARUBA HANUMANTHAPPA & 4 OTHERS= Reported in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=CRLA&mno=624&year=2013

Sec.302 I.P.C. =  When oral evidence is quiet contrary to the  Medical evidence , the very presence of eye witnesses becomes doubtful and in such an event no reliance can be placed on their evidence for convicting the Accused - Hence the lower court rightly acquitted the accused = JAIKARAN AND OTHERS V. STATE OF U.P.[2], wherein it is held in paragraph No.12: “Great emphasis was led on the approximate time of injury. That in no way affects the credibility of PW2’s evidence. Though the evidence of PW1 does not specifically indicate the injury on PW2, that is but natural. Before a young person two murders were committed and it is quite natural to create a sense of shock and minor variations in his evidence do not affect his testimony which is otherwise credible. Unless the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out o…

in partition suit mere long possession and enjoyment of one of the coparcener does not vest him with any special rights from partition = GUDIVADA NARAYANAMURTHY VS GUDIVADA PARVATHAMMA & 13 ORS= Reported in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=SA&mno=855&year=2013

in partition suit mere long possession and enjoyment of one of the coparcener does not vest him with any special rights from partition = Though he is said to be the illegitimate child of late Yerranna, he is entitled to a share.  It is not his case that either any prior partition in the family has taken place, or an item claimed by him is his
self-acquisition.  The mere fact that he is in long possession of the property, by itself does not take away the property from the purview of partition. 
SA 855 / 2013

SASR 9690 / 2007
PETITIONERRESPONDENTGUDIVADA NARAYANAMURTHY  VSGUDIVADA PARVATHAMMA & 13 ORSPET.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYAMRESP.ADV. : SUBJECT: CONCURRENTDISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAMTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
SECOND APPEAL No.855 of 2013 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.63 of 1994 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, against the appellant (defendant No.1) and respondents 3 to 14, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The…

Sec.306 of I.P.C. - Mere scolding - Teacher scolded the student that " Not to commit theft - go and die " - never amounts to abatement which comes under sec. 306 of IPC if the student died due to that as there is no mensrea as by mistake he thought that the student committed theft = Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Swamimalai Police Station, Swamimalai, Thanjavur District. 2.K.Anandavalli .. Respondent= Reported in http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/filename=62191

Sec.306 of I.P.C. - Mere scolding - Teacher scolded the student that " Not to commit theft - go and die " - never amounts to abatement which comes under sec. 306 of IPC  if the student died due to that as there is no mensrea as by mistake he thought that the student committed theft = 
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.13 of 2012 in Crime No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and quash the same.=
 when the petitioner  as a teacher asked her student Suriya to keep her handbag at a place, a five hundred rupees note fell out from the bag and when she was keeping it inside the bag, the petitioner having seen that mistook it that the deceased was committing theft and the petitioner reprimanded the deceased and stated that 'instead of committing theft, she should go and die'.  As the deceased was scolded in the presence of the student…