Without paying compensation for the land grabbed to the tune of 31 Acres, the State Government permitted Airports Authority of India to proceed with Expansion of Gannavaram Airport.
Case: WP 17454/2020
All the atrocities of State Government here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 2017
Telangana High Court denied Divorce on the ground of Cruelty saying that,
14…..
Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty.”
Citations : 2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 714
Other Sources:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e23459c46571b7222aa699a
Supreme Court granted Divorce here.
Sukhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October 1999
Supreme Court explained the Section 6 of Evidence Act.
Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmores Evidence Act reads thus: Under the present Exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously, i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement. Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued.
… and…
Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summarises the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of the Evidence Act thus:
1. The declarations (oral or written must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
2. The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past.
3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot &c.the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.
4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, declarations are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.
Rohtash Vs State of Haryana on 22 May 2012
This case emphasizes the importance of examination of material witnesses in proving the allegations of Demand for Dowry, the lack of which results in Acquittal of accused persons.
Citations: [2012 ACR 3002], [2012 AIR SC 2297], [2012 ALD CRI 2 340], [2012 JLJR 4 97], [2012 NCC 2 308], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 5 799], [2012 RLW SC 4 3745], [2012 SCALE 5 578], [2012 SCC 6 589], [2012 UC 2 1310], [2012 SCC CRI 3 287], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 457], [2012 AIC 115 87], [2012 GUJLR 3 2199], [2012 CUTLT 114 1107], [2013 SCJ 4 636], [2012 SLT 7 1], [2012 AIOL 239], [2012 AIR SC 3318], [2012 CRIMES SC 2 324], [2012 CRLJ SC 3189], [2012 JT 5 451], [2012 SUPREME 4 88], [2012 KCCR SN 4 228], [2012 DMC 3 323], [2012 DLT CRI 3 6], [2012 MAHLJ CRI 4 97], [2012 CUT LT 114 1107], [2012 GUJ LR 3 2199], [2012 AIR SCW 3318], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 539]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146360566/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af20e4b0149711415aff
Kapil Gupta Vs State on 23 Sep 2020
Honey trapper tried her best to trap this man as he denied to pay her Five Lakh Rupees. Delhi High Court prima facie concluded that the man needs to be protected from Arrest, so granted Anticipatory Bail to the man. All know that, this false case will be dismissed. And no action will be taken against the real abuser of law.
Saumitra Anand and Ors Vs Registrar General High Court of Allahabad and Ors on 27 Jul 2020
Again a fundamental rule to be followed who are seeking a writ of Mandamus from a High Court. First seek justice for the Concerned authority against whom the Writ is being prayed for. Once that stage is exhausted (successfully or otherwise), the litigant is good for filing the writ of mandamus.
AP HC also held so in the case here.
State of AP Vs Dammalapati Srinivas
After the High Court of AP granted stay on all further investigation here, State went to Apex Court challenging the Stay order.
Diary No.- 20400 – 2020
On 25-Nov-2020, Supreme Court has Stayed the High Court gag order alone. Rest of the Order remain as it is.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Smt. Nakka Nimmi Grace Vs Union of India
The Petitioner is the Secretary of Mundadugu Praja Party from Visakhapatnam. She alleged that there is rampant phone tapping going on against VVIPs and Judges of High Court of AP.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020
Even though this PIL petition was dismissed, the Division bench made a valuable comment, that Demanding of Justice from Concerned Authority in Govt is a Must before Seeking a Writ of Mandamus from a High Court.
Here is the snippet from the 2-page dismissal Order.
Besides this in para 7 of the writ petition a categorical statement has been made that the petitioner had not made any representation to the Government, meaning thereby, that the petitioner before making prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus by way of PIL, has not demanded justice before the authority concerned. This is the condition precedent for invoking Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner has not demanded any justice from the authority concerned. In the writ petition only vague submissions were made. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file amendment petition. Subsequently, one interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed for amendment, which was itself defective and the same was dismissed on 24.02.2020. While dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2020, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with relevant documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order, dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner has filed another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2020, in which he made it clear to amend the writ petition by adding para 4(2) to para 4 (2) (k). In support of so called amendment petition, an affidavit has also been filed. Even after going through the amendment petitions, it is clear that no assertion has been made regarding approaching the authority concerned for demanding justice and directly this writ petition was filed. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed with vague statements and also without approaching the authority concerned, we are of the opinion that such writ petition even as PIL may not be entertained.
Recently, Allahabad HC also held this same rule here.
Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014
Division Bench of Bombay High Court has passed the following directions to Passport Authorities, regarding renewal of passport, wherein Magistrate has given permission to do so.
6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.
10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”.
Here are the directions…
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other
than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All
qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the
additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport
shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.
