Suspension of sentence & fine pending appeal = petitioner has already filed an Insolvency Petition and the petitioner is not in a position to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the likesum each and hence, he prays this Court to relax the said conditions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.264 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur insofar directing him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of one week from the date of the order is concerned is hereby relaxed. The other condition imposed on the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate shall remain unaltered.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1387 OF 2016 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by … Continue reading Suspension of sentence & fine pending appeal = petitioner has already filed an Insolvency Petition and the petitioner is not in a position to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the likesum each and hence, he prays this Court to relax the said conditions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.264 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur insofar directing him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of one week from the date of the order is concerned is hereby relaxed. The other condition imposed on the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate shall remain unaltered.

Or.21, Rule 89 – barred by limitation = this application was filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC and not under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Significantly, in the affidavit filed in support of this revision, the petitioner/judgment debtor insinuated that the execution sale was held illegally. No such claim was however made by him before the executing Court. Had he alleged any such irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the execution sale, the petitioner/judgment debtor should have taken recourse to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC and not Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. Under the latter provision, if any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree, the judgment debtor may apply to have the sale set aside upon depositing in Court the sums stipulated thereunder. Order 21 Rule 92 CPC speaks of when an execution sale is to become absolute or alternately, when it is to be held to have been set aside. Thereunder, when an application is made under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, the deposits required thereunder are to be made within 60 days from the date of the sale. By implication, the application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC must also be made within 60 days of the execution sale. In the present case, there is no dispute that the sale in favour of the second respondent/auction purchaser was held as long back as on 27.06.2012 and was confirmed on 19.10.2012. A sale certificate was issued on 11.03.2013 and the execution petition itself stood closed. The application to set aside the sale was filed in October, 2014!

CRP 1519 / 2016 CRPSR 7954 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT CHEBROLU SUBBA RAO, WEST GODAVARI DIST VS PADMAJI … Continue reading Or.21, Rule 89 – barred by limitation = this application was filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC and not under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Significantly, in the affidavit filed in support of this revision, the petitioner/judgment debtor insinuated that the execution sale was held illegally. No such claim was however made by him before the executing Court. Had he alleged any such irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the execution sale, the petitioner/judgment debtor should have taken recourse to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC and not Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. Under the latter provision, if any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree, the judgment debtor may apply to have the sale set aside upon depositing in Court the sums stipulated thereunder. Order 21 Rule 92 CPC speaks of when an execution sale is to become absolute or alternately, when it is to be held to have been set aside. Thereunder, when an application is made under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, the deposits required thereunder are to be made within 60 days from the date of the sale. By implication, the application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC must also be made within 60 days of the execution sale. In the present case, there is no dispute that the sale in favour of the second respondent/auction purchaser was held as long back as on 27.06.2012 and was confirmed on 19.10.2012. A sale certificate was issued on 11.03.2013 and the execution petition itself stood closed. The application to set aside the sale was filed in October, 2014!

suspend the execution of the said sentence and payment of fine pending disposal of the appeal = the petitioner has already filed an Insolvency Petition and the petitioner is not in a position to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the likesum each and hence, he prays this Court to relax the said conditions.= Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.264 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur insofar directing him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of one week from the date of the order is concerned is hereby relaxed. The other condition imposed on the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate shall remain unaltered.

CRLRC 1387 / 2016 CRLRCSR 25139 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT L.VENIKATA SUBBA RAO VS SRI CHETTUPALLI RAGHAVA RAO … Continue reading suspend the execution of the said sentence and payment of fine pending disposal of the appeal = the petitioner has already filed an Insolvency Petition and the petitioner is not in a position to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the likesum each and hence, he prays this Court to relax the said conditions.= Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.264 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur insofar directing him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of one week from the date of the order is concerned is hereby relaxed. The other condition imposed on the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate shall remain unaltered.

challenging the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from the house bearing Plot No.4, admeasuring 131.66 sq. yards in Sy.No.552/4 situated in Prasanthi Nagar Colony, Singupuram Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District, for the purpose of construction of drainage.=the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of his house property, his possession shall not be interfered with by the respondents-authorities without following due process of law as enjoined whether under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or in any other law.

WP 12787 / 2016 WPSR 67487 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT IJJU VENKATA RAO, SRIKAKULAM DIST VS PRL SECY, … Continue reading challenging the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from the house bearing Plot No.4, admeasuring 131.66 sq. yards in Sy.No.552/4 situated in Prasanthi Nagar Colony, Singupuram Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District, for the purpose of construction of drainage.=the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of his house property, his possession shall not be interfered with by the respondents-authorities without following due process of law as enjoined whether under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or in any other law.

‘No Objection Certificate’ = zeroyiti land. Therefore, he sought ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents for alienating the said land.= Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the recommendation dt.24.07.2013 of respondent No.4 for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioner.

WP 13149 / 2016 WPSR 69218 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT SEETHALA VENKATA RAO, WG DIST VS PRL SECY, … Continue reading ‘No Objection Certificate’ = zeroyiti land. Therefore, he sought ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents for alienating the said land.= Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the recommendation dt.24.07.2013 of respondent No.4 for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioner.

the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the date of framing of charges, on the date of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of pronouncement of judgment. The petitioners are directed to be represented through a Counsel before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

CRLP 5008 / 2016 CRLPSR 16508 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT CH.VENKATA RAO, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. & ANO VS P.P., … Continue reading the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the date of framing of charges, on the date of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of pronouncement of judgment. The petitioners are directed to be represented through a Counsel before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court.= wherein the question of identity of the petitioners does not arise, the presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 is dispensed with before the trial Court, except on the dates on which the learned trial Judge insists for their presence and the 1 st petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates and also represent the other petitioners.

CRLP 2101 / 2016 CRLPSR 6976 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT DESHABOINA JANAKIRAMULU AND 3 OTHERS VS THE STATE … Continue reading dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court.= wherein the question of identity of the petitioners does not arise, the presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 is dispensed with before the trial Court, except on the dates on which the learned trial Judge insists for their presence and the 1 st petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates and also represent the other petitioners.