In this case, it was held that, DVC is maintainble even after Divorce.
Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Smt Justice Sri Devi had passed a Quash order on the false and malicious proceedings which were initiated u/s 498 IPC and others under the ground that there are no specific details in the Charge Sheet to bring home the allegations also because Assistant Government Pleader did not obtain sanction from Central Government to ask the Magistrate to take cognizance of this case.
Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Another judgment from Erstwhile High Court of AP which rapped on the knuckles of the JMFC who dismissed the Discharge petition filed u/s 239 CrPC, where there were no specific allegations on the petitioner.
C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this case, AP High Court has directed that State Election Commission take steps to remove the colours painted on the Panchayat buildings before Elections can be conducted. State Government lead by Jagan mohan reddy, had painted the colours of their Party on the Panchayat buildings making a loss to the tune of over 1000 Crores to the exchequer. Now for removal also more funds will be spent. What a mockery of public !!!
Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020Citations: [2
Other Source links:
State of AP dragged it’s feet to Supreme Court on the above judgment and got this in return…
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
AP High Court has rightly held the various counts of errors committed by the Trial Court magistrate in dismissing a Discharge Petition filed u/s 239.
B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Based on Division Bench judgment here, AP High Court has passed this observation,
From Para 8,
R.Parijatham and Anr Vs M.Kameshwari and Ors on 21 July, 20178. Before closing these cases, we feel the necessity of observing that instances have been coming to the notice of this Court, where some Subordinate Courts have not been marking the documents while disposing of the interlocutory applications. In this context, we are reminded of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.Bhoopal Reddy vs. K.R.Laxmi Bai [1998(1) ALT 292 (D.B.)], wherein it was observed that in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions; that nowhere it is envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material and that in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents at the interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.Regrettably, despite this authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, some Courts have been ignoring the same and not marking the documents. The case on hand reflects one such instance. We, therefore, direct the High Court on administrative side to issue a Circular directing the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications before deciding such applications.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38957892/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Justice Shri Seetarama Murthi has delivered this judgment.
4. (f) Coming next to the contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have no ‘domestic relationship’ and that they have never shared the household or lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Under Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173889445/
The index page is here.
Based on the earlier two judgments here and here, Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti of AP HC has noted in this judgment that,
Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015This Court in a decision in A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Hyderabad v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd., and another decision in Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.Lakshmi Bhai and another held that the practice of marking the documents in the interlocutory application only shall be continued. It is thus obvious that the documents filed by either of the parties shall have to be marked, unless the parties specifically opt for not marking either on the ground of inadmissibility or for some other reasons of their own.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Similar to this judgment here, AP HC has delivered this judgment by the same Judge, on the necessity of marking documents even in Interlocutory Applications.
A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 1997Citations: 1998 (1) ALD 533, 1998 (1) ALT 182
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/965255/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
