Skip to main content

A.P.H.C.CASE LAW - ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Search This Blog

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019

on December 31, 2018

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019
God bless you all with great health, wealth and prosperty
with warm regards
Your's
Advocatemmmohan

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C = Even after disposal of SLP BY SUPREME COURT - High court has no power to review the judgment to give permission to compund the offence - Compounding of an offence after disposal of case does not arise under sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C.= Asi Balayya (A1)and others State of A.P.,rep. by P.P. and another= Reported in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=8168

Sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C = Even after disposal of SLP BY SUPREME COURT - High court has no power to review the judgment to give permission to compund the offence - Compounding of an offence after disposal of case does not arise under sec.320(2) of Cr.P.C.= = whether the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be reviewed at this stage and then the parties can be permitted to compound the offences. There is no provision which provides that such a composition can be done even after the final disposal of a criminal case which is covered by either clause (1) or clause (2). The overall reading of the provisions enumerated makes it very clear or implies that in order to compound an offence in a criminal case the basic rule is that it should be pending before the trial Court or the appellate Court or the revisional Court as the case may be. Clause (1) is to be read together with the other clauses with regards to the stage of compounding an offence, subject to

RULE 32 OF CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE - POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - PLEADINGS OF SUBSISTING = whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, = it can be considered after taking evidence and while giving judgment as it is a question of fact ; It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting..... is it fatal = No.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9739 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P.No.5750 of 2002 25.03.2013 Ranga Lingaiah Sajjala Venkat Reddy Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri Aravinda Rao Verapally <Gist: >Head Note: ?CITATIONS: 1.2002 (6) ALD 101 ORDER The question whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, is a question of fact. If the Power of Attorney holder has known the facts relating to the suit personally, then he is always at liberty to give evidence either as Power of Attorney holder or in his personal capacity. The contention that Power of Attorney holder cannot depose the facts which are within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, who is his principal, depends upon the materia

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.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9 th August, 2012 Judgment : The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated 27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 12-10-2011; t

Powered by Blogger

copy rights reserved