Showing posts from 2016

Section 5 of the limitation Act.=delay of (3776) days in filing the aforementioned proposed first appeal suit =the plaintiff at the instance of the villagers had committed that he would not execute the decree.- It is hard to believe that the plaintiff, who had obtained a decree on merits, after a serious and long drawn contest, had made such a commitment. Further, even if any such commitment was said to have been made, still, the Government officer concerned should have approached the Assistant Government Pleader and ought to have obtained his opinion and ought to have got preferred a first appeal and ought to have got the settlement recorded in the said appeal.;The next cause urged for condonation of delay is that the record was misplaced and could not be traced till the execution petition reached an advanced stage of the evidence on the side of the judgment debtors/ Government. The said averment lays bare that even after the execution petition was filed, no sincere efforts were made by the officer and his staff concerned for tracing the file. Therefore, the reasons assigned ex facie appear to be not sufficient and valid reasons for condonation of the long delay of more than (3500) days.

CRP 200 / 2016

Civil Revision Petition No.200 of 2016
This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) by the petitioners/appellants/ defendants 1 to 4 is directed against the orders dated 05.02.2015 of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam passed in of 2013 in an unregistered first appeal suit-ASSR no.179 of 2013 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of (3776) days in filing the aforemention…

Order 18 Rule 2, in cases where there are several defendants, some supports the plaintiff and some opposes the same, what should be the order of leading evidence or cross examination amongst such defendants = basically on the principle that the party supporting the plaintiff should first lead the evidence, before the defendants opposing the plaintiff 10. Lastly, in the basic judgment as , Shah Hiralal Himatlal and Ors. v. M.G. Pathak and Ors., while dealing with the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2, in cases where there are several defendants, some supports the plaintiff and some opposes the same, what should be the order of leading evidence or cross examination amongst such defendants, the principle as laid down is reproduced as under : "4. So far as the defendants go, the question which of the defendants should begin has not been dealt with in Order 18, Civil Procedure Code. But on general principle, if any of the defendants supports the plaintiff in whole or in part, then he should address the court and lead his evidence first before the other defendants who do not support wholly or in part the plaintiffs case. The order in which the defendants lead evidence becomes important only when some of them support the case of the plaintiffs in whole or in part while the others do not. If all the defendants completely oppose the plaintiff's case, then the question of order of leading evidence amongst the defendants is immaterial. It is only when the defendants are divided into two groups, one group consisting of the defendants supporting the plaintiff's case in any part, that the question of order of leading evidence becomes important. In such cases among defendants the order of leading evidence should be as follows : 1. Those defendants who fully support the case of the plaintiff; 2. Those defendants who partly support the case of the plaintiff; 3. Those defendants who do not support the case of the plaintiff in any part."

Bottom of Form Bombay High Court Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar vs Y.S. Bagde And Anr. on 17 June, 2004 Equivalent citations: 2004 (4) MhLj 620 Author: A V Mohta Bench: A V Mohta JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. Very small controversy is raised in this petition as to which defendant's should be allow to cross examine first, those who support the plaintiff or those who opposes the plaintiff. 2. The petitioner herein, the Ex-Chairman, along with others Ex-Directors of the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, respondent No. 2 herein, are charge-sheeted under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively). 3. An application has been filed by the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Bank, after the completion of cross-examination of other respondents. The respondent No. 2 and other respondents have resisted t…

Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing of the product Karl Fisher Reagent bearing the plaintiffs trade name Stable 2Y++ Single Solution KF Reagent pending disposal of the suit. = When plaintiff is using the trade mark of KF 2Y, no cause of action arises for granting of injunction, as such, granting of injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade mark KF 2Y++ is erroneous. A perusal of Exs.P3 to P13 and Exs.R2 to R5 goes to show that labels and style of font mentioning as Stable 2Y++ and the colour and logo are also not similar and back ground is also not similar. Besides the logo, the plaintiff is using the word Standard Reagents whereas the defendant is using Shine Chem Laboratories. As far as Single Solution is concerned, it is descriptive word and Stable 2Y++ even according to the plaintiff, is descriptive in nature. The numeral 2 along with Y++ refers to the stability period being 2 years and single solution refers to composition of the solution. The mark Stable 2Y++ Single Solution of the plaintiff does not have any distinctiveness and the descriptive sentence Single Solution KF Reagent cannot be called as a proprietary mark or the trademark. Whether the words Stable 2Y++ has attained secondary meaning regarding the products of the plaintiff has to be gone into in the suit after evidence is let in by both parties.

2016 April -


C.M.A. No.784 of 2015


M/s. Shine Chem Laboratories, A Partnership firm, rep. by its Proprietor
M.Dasanjaneyulu. ... Appellant

Standard Reagents Private Limited,  Rep. by its MD Sri M.Srinivas....Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:  Sri Ashok Ram Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Deshpande.


? Cases referred

1.(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 714
2 2008 (36) PTC 168 Del
3 2003 (26) PTC 593 Delhi
4 (2011) 8 SCLR 030
5 2010 (1) ALD 199
6 Civil Appeal Nos.6314_15 of 2001
7AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1999  
8 (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 257
9 AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 86
10 AIR 2002 Supreme Court 275(1)
11 1944 (2) AII ER 269


CMA No. 784 OF 2015  

         This appeal is filed challenging the order dated
21.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.658 of 2014 in O.S.No.1067 of
2014 by…

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC = to decide the quantum of compensation, earnings of the victim is a relevant factor -Petitioner has explained the reasons for not filing these documents along with the O.P. and that explanation was not disputed by the opposite parties. The Tribunal instead of allowing the claimant to produce those documents in evidence dismissed the applications merely on hyper technicalities.- Considering these aspects, I feel that the Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing both the applications and failed to exercise the judicial discretion vested in it.

CRP 1279 / 2016
C.R.P. Nos. 1202 of 2012 and 1279 of 2016
These two Revisions are preferred against common order dt.09.01.2012 in I.A.No.64 of 2012 and I.A.No.65 of 2012 in MVOP.No.264 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. These two petitions are filed by the claimant in the above referred O.P., one to receive documents by condoning delay and the other to recall him for the purpose of marking those documents.
3. The contesting respondent in the O.P. reported no counter for the reliefs claimed in the two petitions.
4. The Tribunal dismissed the said applications purely on technical ground that Order VII Ru…

Suit for Declaration the alleged sale deeds of which they are not parties are null and void and not binding on them and also for injunction – court fee is only on Notional value but not on the value of sale deeds as per sec.24 of A.P.C.F. & S.V.ACT= 46. The reliance on Section 24 by the court below in this regard also cannot be sustained since the provisions therein would be attracted only if the petitioners have sought a declaration of their title and sought relief of possession/injunction or if they sought for a declaration that documents to which they are parties are null and void or a declaration of any nature other than one sought for in the plaint. The said provision would have no application in a situation where the petitioners are not parties to the documents which they wish to be declared as null and void and not binding on them. 2015 Oct.

CRP.No.4485 of 2012
Nade Ali Mirza, S/o.Late Haider Ali Mirza, And othersRevision Petitioners
Mrs.Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala, W/o.Mohd. Saleem Dawawala, and others....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sri P.Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7: Sri Rakesh Sanghi Counsel for respondent No.30 : Sri Asadullah Sharif

? Cases referred
1. ILR 34 Cal. 329 (P.C.) 2. AIR 1940 Mad. 113 3. 2007 (5) ALD 863 4. AIR 1976 AP 199 5. 1989 (3) ALT 629 6. 2005 (6) ALD 132 7. 1972 (2) APLJ 100 8. 2009 (1) ALT 219 9. 2000 (5) ALD 102 10. 2003 (4) ALD 345 11. 2007 (4) ALD 458 12. AIR 1939 Madras 462 13. AIR 2010 AP 178 14. AIR 2010 SC 2777 15. AIR 2014 SC 1286 16. AIR 2002 SC 233 17. AIR 1973 SC 2384 18. AIR 2010 SC 2807 19. (1980) 4 SCC 354 20. (1993) 2 ALT 48 (FB) 21. 35 Indian App…