- 8,170 hits
Category Archives: Uncategorized
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT = suit for partition and separate possession = can not be considered as Exclusive possession = However, having regard to their claim that the third defendant is entitled only to 1/4th share, their exclusive possession pleaded by them cannot be taken as a plea of a stranger claiming exclusive right over the entire property but as a joint owner. Though the property is settled in favour of first plaintiff and first defendant under the Will Ex.A3, the possession and enjoyment of the first item of property by the third defendant cannot be taken as one by a person who is entitled to be in possession as an exclusive owner. It was only because Dr.Jayaraman died, suddenly in a road accident, the property is in the enjoyment of third defendant as a person living along with Dr.Jayaraman during his life time and not as a person having independent title ; Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came after the death of Dr.Jayaraman and the succession opens immediately upon the death of Dr.Jayaraman, a specific ground was raised in the appeal memorandum that the third defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 5 to 9. = State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.= As pointed out earlier, items 5 to 9 of the suit properties are allotted to Dr.Jayaraman in a family partition and it has been held by the trial Court that they are his ancestral properties. After the death of Dr.Jayaraman in the year 2002, his two daughters are entitled to equal share as that of Dr.Jayaraman and as a result, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to 5/12 share and the first wife of Dr.Jayaraman, namely, the second plaintiff and third defendant, the illegitimate son of Dr.Jayaraman are entitled to 1/12 share. This is by virtue of the State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=129549&Table_Main_Txt=cheordtext BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.10.2017 Reserved on: 02.01.2017 Delivered on: 09.10.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Appeal Suit (MD) No.291 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2014 1.Ezhilmathi 2.Karthikeyan : … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- Service Matter – directing to recruit the full time and part time Masalchies, who have put in more than 15/10/5 years of service in their respective units for recruitment to the posts of Attenders, the petitioner, who is also a part time masalchie, comes before us by way of this writ petition, seeking for such recruitment as an Office Subordinate. = Central Government, State Government and their instrumentalities have right to engage daily wagers on the agreed wages, on contractual basis, ad hoc and temporary basis and there is no prohibition in the Constitution or under any law of the land. However, their appointment should be in accordance to law. – Merely because the masalchies were not appointed by following the procedure prescribed for the post into which they are absorbed, it cannot be said in all cases, that their initial appointment itself was with ulterior motive. The penury of the petitioner and the likes may be one of the reasons for them to accept the employment with meagre wages. But, however, our sympathies to the petitioner, who has worked in the same capacity, with meagre wages, for several years, do not permit us to apply the circular to the petitioner as it is only issued as one time measure, as is made clear by the circular of the High Court dated 26.07.2014 by the words that the circular is only one time arrangement and would be applicable to the existing incumbents as on the date of the circular. With that thought, we can only recommend to the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed employees and to explore the possibility and feasibility of issuing a circular similar to the circular issued earlier.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14375&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.41594 OF 2015 11-10-2017 A.Narsimha Reddy…. PETITONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … RESPONDENTS COUNSEL … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- writ of Mandamus to declare Statute 13(3) made under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 (for short the Act), and the procedure prescribed by the respondents for selection of candidates for admission into the six year integrated B-Tech programme for the academic year 2017-18, as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order, and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 371(D) of the Constitution of India, and to strike down the same.= Statute 13 (3) of the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be struck down on this ground alone= It is only students, who were admitted prior to the date of the judgment, who were directed by the Supreme Court not to be disturbed. We had by the order dated 14.07.2017, while issuing notice before admission, directed the respondent-University to reserve six seats, among the seats remaining unfilled as on the date of the order, in the S.V. University local area. These six seats have, admittedly, not been filled-up till date. As a consequence of our order, declaring Statute 13(3) made under the Act ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the respondent- university shall consider all eligible candidates, strictly in the order of their inter-se merit, for admission to the six un-filled seats in the six year integrated engineering course. This exercise shall be completed, and the selected students shall be admitted, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14380&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.21836 of 2017 04-10-2017 A.Sateesh Reddy and others … Petitioners The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies and others .. Respondents … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT = the Writ Petition in a contractual matter is not maintainable. In respect of bank guarantees, the satisfaction of the beneficiary is final with regard to breach of the covenants between the beneficiary and the person on whose behalf the bank guarantee was issued and the bank has no other alternative except to honour the payment under the guarantee. In the case before me, though the respondents satisfy the requirement of State, no relief can be granted in the present Writ Petition in the absence of any element of public law. The contract between the petitioners and the respondents are purely private contracts. The first point is answered accordingly.- Hence, I am of the opinion that the present Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 26.07.2017 is not maintainable and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14379&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No. 28092 of 2017 10-10-2017 M/s Jaiprakash-Gayatri Joint Venture, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory G. Venkateswara Rao and others Petitioners State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT – MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court and apportioned the same among the petitioners. -The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of interest granted @ 9% per annum ;since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. = the appeal filed by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14374&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.189 OF 2006 and batch 06-10-2017 Naseemunnisa Begum and others. Appellants Puligadda Narasimha and others. . Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Smt. S. Vani Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Sunil Kumar … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT – MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM= Disability Certificate was issued 2 years 2 months after the accident is not a factor to discard/disbelief – entitled to compensation for 50% disability cannot be countenanced in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the Disability Certificate was issued 2 years 2 months after the accident. However, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation towards the injuries suffered by him – Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is enhanced as mentioned below: ————————————————————————— Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal by this Court Rs. Rs. ————————————————————————— 1. Injuries 20,000.00 40,000.00 2. Pain & suffering 5,000.00 25,000.00 3. Medical & extra-nourishment 2,768.00 5,000.00 4. Transport expenses 500.00 1,000.00 5. Damage to clothing 500.00 500.00 ————- ———— Rounded off total : 29,000.00 71,500.00 ————- ———— 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.29,000/- to Rs.71,500/- (Rupees seventy one thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation. No order as to costs.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14373&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.652 OF 2006 05-10-2017 Shaik Mahaboob Appellant A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Main Road, Nizamabad and another. Respondents Counsel for the appellant :Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Vasudeva … Continue reading
AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT – MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury i.e., left femur, he might have bed ridden for a longer period. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is working as a private Typist and he has suffered a grievous injury to his left femur. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for not considering the bunch of Medical Bills worth Rs.39,000/- filed by the appellant, except stating that the Medical Officer was not examined. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.21,000/- as against the Medical Bills of worth Rs.39,000/- appears to be arbitrary. I do not see any valid reason in disallowing the said Medical Bills, for the reason that even as per the finding of the Tribunal, the appellant had received a grievous injury to his left femur and was bed-ridden for about six months. Therefore, the Medical Bills worth Rs.39,000/- is granted. 9. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month, which appears to be on lower side. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month and for 6 months, it comes to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings. 10. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is now enhanced as mentioned below: ————————————————————————— Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal by this Court Rs. Rs. ————————————————————————— 1. Pain and suffering 5,000.00 30,000.00 2. Medical Bills 21,000.00 39,000.00 3. Loss of earnings for 9,000.00 18,000.00 six months ————- ———— TOTAL : 35,000.00 87,000.00 ————- ———— 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.87,000/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount also from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation. No order as to costs.
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14377&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.266 OF 2006 05-10-2017 Yedama Laxma Reddy Appellant Panasa Buchaiah and another Respondents Counsel for the appellant:Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav Counsel for the respondents : Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, SC for R.2 <GIST: >HEAD … Continue reading