State Government issued GOs to review all decisions taken by TDP Government.
GO.Rt.No. 1411
GO.Rt.No. 344
Varla Ramaish garu filed WP at AP High Court and the honorable granted stay on the operation of both the above GOs.
As usual, State Government went to Supreme Court here against the stay Order given by AP HC.
The DGP of AP Police Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS was suspended and here is the GO.
Upon filing a WP at AP High Court, the above suspension was set aside and the officer was reinstated.
State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an SLP at Supreme Court here.
Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
Single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh held that, cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
From Para 3,
3. Since O.S. No. 1141 of 2000, later renumbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2003, was ordered to be tried along with O.S. No. 47 of 1998, obviously common evidence is being recorded in both the suits. When two suits are clubbed and tried together, all the parties to the suits have a right to cross-examine the witness examined by the adversary, because Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) confers such right on them. As per that Section 138 of the Act the witness called by a party shall first be examined-in-chief and if the adverse party so desires he can cross-examine him and then if the party calling him so desires, can re-examine him. That section specifically lays down that Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Casemine copy:
Legal Crystal copy:
Citations : [2006 ALD 1 370], legalcrystal.com/442436
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166172/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f85de4b01497111422e0
https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/442436/k-c-kanniyappa-vs-lalitha-anr
Relying on Bipin Shantilal Panchal here, and properly identifying that certain judgments from Supreme Court have not considered Bipin Panchal, correctly held that, except for Stamp duty and Registration fee, all other objections to any document sought to be introduced during evidence stage have to be parked towards the end of trial and considered then while judgment stage.
From Para 15,
…
Coming to the expression in Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries), where it was no doubt observed that admissibility of document held to be decided at the stage of admission by marking, instead of leaving to be decided subsequently. The facts therein were Xerox copy of the trade mark registration certificate (which is in fact the suit document) without production of original even objected by opposite party from the trial Court permitted to mark subject to objection on proof and admissibility held wrong procedure. In fact it was observed that from same is the suit document and no foundation as to what happened to the original to receive as Xerox copy of the suit claim which is the trademark registration certificate, it was observed that lower appellate Court having received the document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without exhibit and without opportunity to the other side to rebut the evidence simply relied on it by discussing the same as if admitted in evidence that was found fault. Thereby the expression in Shalimar Chemicals supra confine to the facts for no law laid down of in any case secondary evidence cannot be permitted subject to objection. In fact the earlier expression of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State Of Gujarat particularly Para 12 and Navjot Sandhu @ Afzalguru supra holding any objection (other than on stamp duty and registration) is while marking be kept open for decision finally including on secondary evidence admissibility. Above two expressions of the Apex Court not came for consideration in Shalimar Chemical Supra.
From Para 16,
16. In fact from the expression in Bipin Shantilal there was a direction as guidance to be followed by all Courts while marking documents including on secondary evidence as subject to objections by let open to decide ultimately on the objection while recording the evidence, unless it touches stamp duty and registration to decide instantly. In fact Shalimar Chemicals supra particularly at Para 10 internal Para 20, the expression of the Apex Court in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P Temple, referred and relied which speaks about objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into 2 classes, one is objection that the document which is sought to be proved is inadmissible and the other towards the mode of proof. In the case of objection as to admissibility, it is only a procedural aspect, if not raised while marking, it is not open to raise later including on secondary evidence for as good as primary evidence. Whereas objection as to mode of proof even not raised while marking unless it is proved it cannot be considered in evidence for which there is no waiver, thereby even no objections raised on mode or method of proof there is no waiver to consider document proved or not from objection can be raised on proof at any time but for on the objection as to nature of document for its admissibility if not raised while marking that amounts to waiver.
Finally, from Para 18,
18. From these expressions, even once the certified copy to a certified copy is within the meaning of secondary evidence and any objection to exhibit secondary evidence though in Shalimar Chemicals Supra says to decide instantly for admissibility, from the earlier expressions categorically held directing all courts to follow particularly from Bipin Shanti Lal supra and in Afzal Guru supra that but for objections on stamp duty and registration to decide instantaneously any other objection raised while marking is to record as subject to objection to decide ultimately at the end of trial and not to decide instantaneously and thus against said conclusion arrived by the lower Court, there is nothing to sit in revision against the impugned orders of the lower Court.
Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE HYD 346]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115678797/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ae76214a9326593c4a168c
Justise Lalitha Kanneganti held that there is violation of Guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar in effecting an arrest without complying with 41A CrPC procedure and held demanded reports from both Police belonging to concerned PS and also the Magistrate who mechanically issue Judicial custody.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
AP High Court held that u/s 216, Trial Court well within it’s power to frame additional charges based on additional charge sheet filed by police, even when the case is pending pronouncement of judgment. But since the procedure contemplated was not followed by Magistrate, High Court set aside the second set of charges framed on accused and directed the Magistrate to follow the procedure contemplated u/s 217.
But then, Revision-Petitioner went to Supreme Court and there also he lost.
A 3-judge Full bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed these guidelines for Municipal bodies in regards to Demolition of structures.
When the Corporation comes to the conclusion, keeping the above guidelines in view, that the construction in question is required to be demolished or pull down, it should follow the procedure indicated below:
(i) The demolition should not be resorted to during festival days declared by the State Government as public holidays excluding Sundays. If the festival day declared by the Government as a public holiday falls on a Sunday, on that Sunday also, the Corporation should not resort to demolition.
(ii) In any case, there should not be any demolition after sun set and before sun rise.
(iii) The Corporation should give notice of demolition as required by the statute fixing the date of demolition. Even on the said date, before actually resorting to the demolition, the Corporation should give reasonable time, depending upon the premises sought to be demolished, for the inmates to withdraw from the premises. If within the time given the inmates do not withdraw, the Corporation may proceed with actual demolition;
These guidelines are laid down in view of the fact that the Corporation is a public authority and its action must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness.
Citations : [LQ 1994 HC 3056], [1995 AIR AP 17], [1995 ALD 1 1], [1994 SCC ONLINE AP 176], [1994 AP LJ 2 194], [1994 (3) ALT 73 (FB)]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1602396/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f72ee4b014971113f5be
https://www.legitquest.com/case/3-aces-hyderabad-v-s-municipal-corporation-of-hyderabad/36BCA
https://www.lawyerservices.in/3-ACES-HYDERABAD-VERSUS-MUNICIPAL-CORPORATION-OF-HYDERABAD-1994-09-02
Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020.
On 2020-10-24, House Motion petition is moved and an interim Stay order was passed at 7.30PM
On 2020-10-25, Stay was further continued until next date; Both parties directed not to demolish/construct any structures till that time
A false allegation/propaganda of Insider Trading in Amaravati Lands was hoisted and CID, AP has registered an FIR against Thallur Ex-MRO Anne Sudheer Babu and other. This is the FOR Quash petition u/s 482 CrPC/
A little briefing about Sudheer Babu
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/MRO-records-capital-regions-rich-past-in-book/articleshow/46731597.cms
Supreme Court requested AP HC to expedite the case here. Didn’t vacate the stay though. The minions are celebrating though.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3011 access attempts in the last 7 days.
