G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Posted on December 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the appellate Tribunal. The lower appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statute to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial system. I am of the considered view that the appellate Court’s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge’s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A No. 13 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. It shall consider every point raised in the written arguments by traversing through the necessary material namely evidence including oral and documentary and give answer to every point and adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Tribunal on 1.4.2003. In view of the direction for their appearance, there is no need to issue a fresh notice to both the parties. Costs shall abide by the result of the appeal.

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Citations: [(2003) 02 AP CK 0073], [2003 (3) ALT 127], [2003 (1) LS 324]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17028650/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cbc607dba348ffee82e

https://lextechsuite.com/G-JAYA-RAO-VERSUS-STATE-OF-AP-2003-02-01

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/947782-g-jay-rao-vs-state

This was followed in this subsequent case here.

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998

Posted on October 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998 (CK)

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19292/

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever on the part of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. In refusing to furnish the certified copy of the docket sheet in Criminal Appeal Nos. 472 and 473 of 1999. After all the proceedings are not confidential but form an integral part of the judicial proceedings. The petitioner is undoubtedly entitled for the certified copy of the said proceedings.
4. In the circumstances, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad is directed to supply the certified copies of the docket orders of the proceedings on payment of usual charges. The docket orders shall be furnished by tomorrow itself.

LQ Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (LQ Ver)

CM Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (CM Ver)

The Index is here.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Posted on June 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 102 and 103,

102. In view of the law as laid down by this Court in Marupudi Dhana Koteswara Rao (supra) that the authorities can seek NOC in case of renewal of passport which is implicit in Rule-5, with which view I am also in agreement that the renewal of passport is also governed by the provisions of the Passport Act, including Sections 5, 6 and the Rules, 1980, the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners to the contrary based on the view taken by the other High Courts is not acceptable and is rejected.
103. To sum up, this Court holds that;
(i) “Issue‟ of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes “renewal‟ of the passport as well;
(ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for “the first time‟, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well;
(iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6;
(iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India;
(v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought.
(vi) On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial;
(vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Posted on February 28, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Posted on December 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge allowed the marking of documents and examination via video conferencing tools.

From Para 2,

2. In the course of the trial of the case, the respondent had filed Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022 under Section 275(1) Cr.P.C and 285(3) of Cr.P.C to permit the respondent to mark documents and to depose before the Court of Trial via Skype or Blue Jeans or any other alternative electronic media and for costs. This application was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 31.03.2021 with certain conditions.

From Para 5,

5. Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Hima Bindu learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the application would be covered by the provisions of Section 273 of Cr.P.C and mere mentioning of a wrong provision in the order would not invalidate the order. She submits that Section 273 of Cr.P.C only stipulates that evidence taken during the course of trial should be in the presence of the accused and there is no restriction as to where the evidence can be recorded. She would further rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs Dr Praful B.Desai1. She contends, on the basis of the above Judgment, that recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is permissible and does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 9,

9. Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the right of cross examination of the petitioner has been forfeited by the trial Court, during the pendency of the present petition. If an order has been passed, the same shall be disregarded and the trial Court shall afford an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner as and when the respondent makes necessary arrangements in terms of the order for being examined through video conference. For this purpose, the respondent shall be given two weeks from today to comply with the directions of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

The time limit to finish Cross Examination through Video conferencing was extended considering some difficulty.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 11 Nov 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Posted on December 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Landmark judgment here, Single bench of AP HC held that,

From Para 6,

6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to strictly comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This would include the requirement of the respondents uploading all the complaints registered by the respondents on to the website of the police authorities or the website of the State Government, in the absence of any website being maintained by the police authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel further relied on the decision passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2020, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 in the case of “Suresh Nanda V. CBI”, wherein the Apex Court observed that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. Accordingly, this court held that neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

3 Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP HC held as follows while directing to release the passport of the petitioner.

From Para 4 and 5,

4. In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court, directing for surrender of passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly un-sustainable under Law.
5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the Court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows while directing to release passport of the petitioner.

6. The law is now fairly well settled that the Courts have no power to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the Passport, even when a criminal case is pending against the accused in the Court of law. It is only the Passport Officer, who is the competent authority under Passports Act, to impound the Passport of any citizen of the country. If the police got any apprehension that the accused, who is facing trial in the criminal case, may leave the country and he may not be available for trial of the case, they have to approach the Passport authority concerned with a request to impound the Passport of the said person on the ground that he is facing trial in a criminal case. If the Court, before whom the accused is facing trial, is of the opinion that if the accused leaves the country and goes abroad that he may not be available for trial, the Court can issue necessary direction to the accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court or on a petition filed by the prosecution to that effect, the Court can pass appropriate order in this regard.

From Para 8, the Precedent

8. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down in aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly unsustainable under law.

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020