Posts

Showing posts from April, 2014

OR.21, RULE 37 C.P.C - BOTH ARE BROTHERS - ARE IN ADVANCED AGE - HIGH COURT DIRECTED TO PAY MONTHLY EQUAL INSTALLMENTS - FAILING WHICH EXECUTION OF DECREE AS PER LAW = PETITIONER RESPONDENT PANTA SRINIVASULA REDDY VS PANTA GOPALA REDDY =2014 (March . Part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=644&year=2014

OR.21, RULE 37 C.P.C - ARREST E.P. - BOTH ARE BROTHERS - ARE IN ADVANCED AGE - HIGH COURT DIRECTED TO PAY MONTHLY EQUAL INSTALLMENTS - FAILING WHICH EXECUTION OF DECREE AS PER LAW = In the circumstances and having regard to the relationship between the parties and their ages, the petitioner herein is directed to pay or deposit the decretal amount at the rate of Rs.20,000/- in equal monthly installments, on or before 5th of every succeeding month, commencing from the month of March, 2014, and the remaining amount in the last month, of course this shall be subject to the amounts, if any, already paid/deposited by the petitioner herein.  If the petitioner fails to deposit any one of the installments, the Court below may pass appropriate orders. 2014 (March . Part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=644&year=2014
CRP 644 / 2014
CRPSR 6055 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENTPANTA SRINIVASULA REDDY  VSPANTA GOPALA REDDYPET.ADV. : SURESH KUMAR POTTURIRESP.ADV. : LAKSHMINARAYANA …

302 I.P.C. - Circumstantial evidence - not established - trial court rightly acquit the accused - their lordship of High court dismissed the state appeal = PETITIONER RESPONDENT THE STATE OF A.P. VS NATTA YESUPADAM AND 2 OTHERS=2014(Feb.Part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLA&mno=109&year=2014

302 I.P.C. - Circumstantial evidence - not established - trial court rightly acquit the accused - their lordship of High court dismissed the state appeal = When appellant court disturb the lower court judgement = SIDHARTHA VASHISHT @ MANU SHARMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[1], the following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals, particularly, against the order of acquittal: (i) There is no limitation on the part of the Appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found. (ii) The Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions. (iii) The Appellate Court can also review the Trial Court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law. (iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. (v) An o…

Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C - Cross Appeal /Cross Objections - when to be filed - Second appeal - when a party failed to file cross objection/cross appeal against the adverse finding against him can not file second appeal - their Lordships of High court dismissed the second appeal on technical/legal point = SMT. JAYAM LEELAVATHAMMA VS NAMA JANARDHANA SETTY AND 8 OTHERS,= 2014 (March. part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=SA&mno=67&year=2014

Image
Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C - Cross Appeal /Cross Objections - when to be filed - Second appeal - when a party failed to file cross objection/cross appeal against the adverse findings against him can not file second appeal - their Lordships of High court dismissed the second appeal on technical/legal point =  Against the said judgment and decree, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal insofar as declaration that defendant Nos.8 and 9 are the absolute owners of item No.4 by virtue of Ex.B-8 sale deed.  The appellant herein, who is defendant No.6 in the suit, has not challenged that finding.  Without filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant cannot file Second Appeal.
13.     Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Hardevinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh and others[1]wherein it is held at para No.21 as under:
“After the 1976 Amendment of Order 41 Rule 22, the insertion made in sub-rule (1) makes it permissible to file a  …