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

No plaint be returned several times on same objections without placing the same before the officer for hearing =As stated supra, the suit was filed by the petitioners herein, the plaint was returned on 06.07.2020 with certain objections, the same was represented complying with the said objections on 08.07.2020, again returned on 13.07.2020 raising similar objections adding some more objections and they were complied with and represented on 15.07.2020, again returned on 17.07.2020 with five (5) objections which were complied with and represented on 21.07.2020, finally returned on 22.07.2020 with nine (9) objections by the Office/Registry of the trial Court. In all these occasions, at the time of representation the petitioners sought for placing the matter before the trial Court for hearing on the office objections and the compliance reported with the explanation of the plaintiffs. But, the Office/Registry of the Court below miserably failed in it’s duty by not placing the matter before the Court below for hearing at the first instance itself soon after compliance of the objections dated 06.07.2020 by the petitioners/plaintiffs vide representation dated 08.07.2020 itself. The action of the Office/Registry of the trial Court in not placing the matter before the Court below so far for hearing on objections, compliance and representation of the plaint is in gross violation of Rule 22 and Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.

Service of notice on corporation = Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on corporation" Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served. 2 (a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, (or) (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self sufficient service, is permitted by law.

child custody order is to be executable but not by IA in the light of the specific direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hand over the minor child to the petitioner on attaining age of 5 years, this Court is of the opinion 4 that the petitioner is entitled for the custody of the minor child by name Pirati Dhanush. However, the petitioner has to follow the procedure provided under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for seeking custody of child. 11) Section 18 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 is extracted hereunder: 18. Execution of decrees and orders.- (1) A decree or an order [other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the execution of decrees and orders. -(1) A decree or an order [other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the execution of decrees and orders." (2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 5 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. (3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary civil court to which it is sent for execution. 12) In the light of the above provision of law, the petitioner has to file an application for execution of the order, dated 03.11.2017 before the Court below as per the procedure provided under law and the present application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

or.39, rule 1 - as per the proceedings of Revenue Divisional officer, dated 20.09.2019, Pattadar pass book issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and his family member certificate was also cancelled and as such, he is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. The petitioner as well as the respondents are claiming title over the petition schedule property. When there is a serious dispute with regard to the title between the parties, simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. In these circumstances, it is not just and proper to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CMA was dismissed, vide order, dated 25.02.2020.

under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal lies to a Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, against an order of Arbitral Tribunal either granting or refusing to grant a relief under Section 17 of the Act, 1996. 7. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:— (a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order granting of the arbitral tribunal.— (a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 4 Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the petitioner herein filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram against an order granted as an interim measure under Section 17 of the Act 1996. Therefore, rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by virtue of the impugned order (e filing order) dated 31.08.2020, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be sustained.

An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by the Learned trial Court, is required to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further 6 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial Court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations.

the default rule under the first proviso to Section 21(2) is that only those financial creditors that are related parties in praesenti would be debarred from the CoC, those related party financial creditors that cease to be related parties in order to circumvent the exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2), should also be considered as being covered by the exclusion thereunder