Posts

Showing posts from May, 2017

suit under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 for eviction. The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 21.02.2015. The appellant filed A.S.No.98 of 2016, but the same was dismissed - There is no necessity for the Managing Committee of a Wakf to obtain the prior permission either of the Wakf Board or of the Chief Executive Officer to initiate action for recovery of possession from the tenants. -Section 90 (1) requires the Court or Tribunal, in every case relating to title or possession of Wakf property or the right of a Mutawali or beneficiary, to issue notice to the Board. An obligation was imposed under Section 90(1) upon the Wakf Tribunal or Court. The consequence of non-compliance with the obligation under sub-section (1) is spelt out in sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) merely states that in the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree passed can be declared as void if the Board applies to the Court in this behalf. Sub-section (3) of Section 90 does not confer a right upon the tenant to come up with a plea that if no notice is issued under Section 90(1), the decree becomes void. Therefore, it is not for the appellant to say that the failure to issue notice makes the decree void. It is for the Wakf Board to say that. In any case, the object behind Section 90 is to protect Wakf as well as Wakf property. The object behind the Managing Committee of a Wakf evicting a tenant is also to protect the interest of the Wakf. - Section 54 applies to encroachers. When I made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant is an encroacher, the learned counsel had no alternative except to deny the same. Therefore, what applies to an encroacher cannot be invoked by a person, who does not admit to be an encroacher.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI                

SECOND APPEAL No.1014 of 2016    

21-04-2017

 Mohammed Iftekhar Uddin, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Rahman, R/o. 75-7-2,    
Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.  Petitioner

Imdadgha Complex, Sarai Mosque Wakf, Rep. by its Secretary Mohammad Rafi,    
S/o. Abdul Sattar, R/o. D.No.76-8-18, Crambay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada,
Secretary, Board of Trustees of Sarai Mosque, Imdadghar, Kaleswarao
Market,Vijayawada-1, Krishna District. Respondent

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. S.M. Subhani

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kumar Tholety


<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

1. AIR 2016 CALCUTTA 351  

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN          

SECOND APPEAL No.1014 of 2016    

JUDGMENT:  

      Aggrieved by concurrent judgments of both the Courts below
directing eviction, the tenant of a Wakf has come up with the above
second appeal.
      2. Heard Mr. S.M. Subhani, learned counsel appearing for the
ap…

contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is concerned, as, it was admitted by the claimant that she was sitting on the edge of the Jeep thereby contributing to the accident. ; Dr.T.Narsing Rao, who issued Ex.A-3, wound certificate, is a stock witness. The approach of the lower Court in that regard does not find favour with this court.

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI      

MACMA No.470 of 2008  

07-04-2017

Smt. Gangone Vijayalaxmi  ...Appellant

Mr. D.Madan Kumar and another...Respondents  

Counsel for Appellant: Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi

Counsel for 2nd Respondent: Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI  

MACMA. No.470 of 2008  

JUDGMENT:  

        This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant
before the lower Court, assailing the judgment dated 28.04.2006 passed
in O.P. No.990 of 2002 by the IV Additional District Judge (FTC),
Nizamabad by virtue of which, the lower Court dismissed the said
O.P. that was filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries
sustained by her in a motor accident, which took place on 25.03.2002
at 5.00 pm.

        Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
on record.

        At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued on the
aspect of contributory negligence, which wa…

cheque bounce case - Stop Payment - Unclaimed Statutory notice - not save the skin of the accused - when presented returned dishonoured even outcome of stop payment, it is within the meaning of the provisions of the Act and even after dishonour when statutory notice issued for any dispute of not served when shows unclaimed from the presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act of due service available therefrom it is of deemed service - there is no oath against oath and there is no evidence in rebuttal and Exs.P10 and P11 with reference to Ex.P1 not in dispute, the Courts below are right in finding the accused guilty and for this Court while sitting in revision against that concurrent finding of guilt concerned there is nothing to interfere.

HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO        

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2887 of 2015    

18-04-2017

M. Mohan Rao Petitioner    

Bheemshetty Sreedhar and another.Respondents    


Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy

Counsel for the respondents:Sri D.V. Reddy for 1st respondent
                              Learned Public Prosecutor for State

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  


? Cases referred
1.      2001 Crl.L.J. 4745
2.      (2015) 9 SCC 622
3.      (2012) 1 SCC 260
4.      (2014) 16 SCC 32
5.      (1990) 2 SCC 385
6.      (1977) 3 SCC 25
7.      (1990) 4 SCC 718
8.      2010 (5) SCC 663
9.      2013 (16) SCC 465
10.     (2007) 6 SCC 555

HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO        
Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2887 of 2015    
ORDER:
      The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.216 of
2012 on the file of Special Magistrate V, Hyderabad, which is for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrume…

No maintainance from Paramour - but he is liable to pay maintenance to his illegitimate child = sole respondent (revision petitioner), used to approach her under the pretense of dropping the minor boy Ganesh in school and developed intimacy with her and lured her to marry him and there was a marriage between them on 27.11.2004, at Nakrekal and in their wedlock, they blessed with female child, M.C. 2nd respondent by name Venkata Harshini. It is thereby her claim is for entitlement of maintenance.= Having regard to the above, the awarding of maintenance to her of Rs.3,500/- per month is per se unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO      

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1587 OF 2012    

13-04-2017

Moodududla Srinivas, S/o M.Yoganandam, aged 31 years, OCC:sOFTWARE eNGINEER, r/O c-210, Siddamsetty Towers, Jawahar Nagar, M          

SMT  .N.Usha Rani. W/o M.Srinivas, aged 34 years,OCC: House Wife, Near Vishnu Apartments, Gndhinagar, Hyderabad, and others.  

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Gopala Reddy

Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao , Public Prosecutor

<Gist

>Head Note:

?Citations:

 2000 Crl.L.J. 1(1)
  (2011)  1 SCC 141
  (1993) 3 SCC 406
  (2014) 1 SCC 188
  2014 1 NCC (SC) 1


HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO      


CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1587 OF 2012    

ORDER:

         The revision petitioner is the sole respondent in
M.C.No.245 of 2009.   The revision respondent No.1, for herself
and minor daughter, in the so-called wedlock with revision
petitioner, maintained the M.C.No.245 of 2009, before the
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- J…

whether FIR be treated as 161 statement =Their preliminary act of visiting the scene cannot be regarded as part of investigation.- the police visited the scene much prior to the registration of FIR and conducted the investigation and therefore, Ex.P.1 was hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C. In our considered view, even if the said admission of PW.1 is taken into consideration, the FIR would not be hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C for the reason that in this case, the acts performed by the police after reaching the spot cannot be regarded as part of investigation.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND  THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO                    

Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2010

21-04-2017

Maskoori Srinivas.Appellant/Accused No.1

The State of A.P. Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. . Respondent

Counsel for Appellant : Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy

Counsel for Respondent   : Public Prosecutor (Telangana)

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1)(2014) 2 SCC Pg.1
2)1993 CriLJ 3684 (SC)
3)2010(1) ALD Crl. Pg.699 (AP)
4)(2004) 13 SCC 165
5)2017(1) ALT (Crl.) 48 (AP) = 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 265 (AP)
6)1994(2) SCC Pg.685
7)2009 CriLJ 4655(SC)
8)(1995) 4 SCC 392
9)(2004) 13 SCC 165

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO        
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1603 of 2010    
JUDGMENT: (Per Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)  
     The challenge in this Criminal Appeal, at the instance of
Appellant/A1, is the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
VI Add…

merely because the deceased had suffered 100% burns that was no ground to discard the dying declaration.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND  THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE  U. DURGA PRASAD RAO              

Criminal Appeal No.1584 of 2010

07-04-2017

Md. Farooq Appellant

The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court, Hyderabad..
Respondent

Counsel for Appellant : Ms.Naseeb Afshan

Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor (TG)

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1)1992 Supp (2) SCC 60
2)(2008) 16 SCC 705
3)(2010) 8 SCC 514
4)(2017) 1 SCC 529


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1584 of 2010    
JUDGMENT: (Per Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)  
        This appeal is filed by appellant/accused aggrieved by the
judgment dated 23.06.2010 in S.C.No.256 of 2009 passed by VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet whereby
the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to
p…