Skip to main content

3 Latest Reportable Hyderabad High Court Judgments July 2018


1. Civil P.C. 1908 - S. 21 (2) - Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (Andhra Pradesh) - S.11 - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Trial Court should not have been dismissed the suit technically saying it has no pecuniary jurisdiction by placing reliance on one of the value of the document of the property referred by the defendants without even considering and without even affording opportunity in relation thereto - At best it could have been directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee and if failed to pay, it should have been rejected the plaint and otherwise while pronouncing the judgment would have been directed to pay the deficit Court fee and should not have been dismissed the suit, that too it cannot arrive any conclusion of law of pecuniary jurisdiction when the plaint valued on its face shows it got pecuniary jurisdiction, and once the Court fee is not revised by revising the value for purpose of jurisdiction on pecuniary aspect, it cannot say that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction much less to dismiss the suit on that ground; Nuthalapati Munaswamy Naidu v. N.A. Chengama Naidu, 03-07-2018 S.A. No. 816 of 2002

2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 130, 185 & 203 - Duty to produce licence and certificate of registration - Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs - Breath Tests - Punishment to be awarded to a drunken driver at least should act as a deterrent for others, who are resorting to such type of violations; D. Chandra Sekhar v. State of Telangana, 03-07-2018 Crl.Rev. No. 1625 of 2018

3. Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 16, 21, 243G & 371D - Validity of Telangana Teachers (Regulation of Teachers) Rules, 2018, notified in G.O.Ms. No.16, School Education (Service II) Department dated 06.06.2018 (the 2018 Rules for short), is questioned in these Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 read with the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975; Chidurala Sudakar v. State of Telangana, 02-07-2018 W.P. No. 19141 of 2018

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.