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

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog