2020[7]APHC[5]-Section 153 (a) & 505 (2) IPC – FACEBOOK – posted comments – No anticipatory bail- the petitioner has posted comments in social media which are very abusive and the petitioner used unparliamentary language while referring to the Member of Parliament. It has become the present day trend on the social media that anybody and everybody can post whatever they want to post. They have crossed all the barriers and now the social media has become a forum for abusive posts. This trend has been going rampantly and they do not even have the fear that they will be punished. In majority cases people though notice these kinds of posts are keeping quiet without initiating any action and they are taking a clue from this. It is high time that this kind of people should be punished suitably.

2020[7]APHC[5]-Section 153 (a) & 505 (2) IPC – FACEBOOK – posted comments – No anticipatory bail- the petitioner has posted comments in social media which are very abusive and the petitioner used unparliamentary language while referring to the Member of Parliament. It has become the present day trend on the social media that anybody and… Read More 2020[7]APHC[5]-Section 153 (a) & 505 (2) IPC – FACEBOOK – posted comments – No anticipatory bail- the petitioner has posted comments in social media which are very abusive and the petitioner used unparliamentary language while referring to the Member of Parliament. It has become the present day trend on the social media that anybody and everybody can post whatever they want to post. They have crossed all the barriers and now the social media has become a forum for abusive posts. This trend has been going rampantly and they do not even have the fear that they will be punished. In majority cases people though notice these kinds of posts are keeping quiet without initiating any action and they are taking a clue from this. It is high time that this kind of people should be punished suitably.

2020[7]APHC [3] – HORTICULTURE POSTS – issued a notification bearing No. Estt.1(1) AP/20/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in the State. The posts of Horticulture Officers are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Service Rules. The petitioner has applied for the same. Vide circular bearing No.Estt.1(1) 140/2013 dated 09.12.2016 respondent No.2 adhering to the provisions of law and the instructions issued from time to time, prepared a provisional selection list for 22 posts, in which the petitioner’s name is also shown. Subsequently as per G.O.Ms.No.33 Agriculture & Cooperation (H & S) Department, dated 17.05.2017 cancelled the selection and entrusted the selection process to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. – TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ALLOWED and set aside the tribunal order.

2020[7]APHC [3] – HORTICULTURE POSTS – issued a notification bearing No. Estt.1(1) AP/20/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in the State. The posts of Horticulture Officers are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Service Rules. The petitioner has applied for the same. Vide circular bearing No.Estt.1(1) 140/2013 dated… Read More 2020[7]APHC [3] – HORTICULTURE POSTS – issued a notification bearing No. Estt.1(1) AP/20/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in the State. The posts of Horticulture Officers are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Service Rules. The petitioner has applied for the same. Vide circular bearing No.Estt.1(1) 140/2013 dated 09.12.2016 respondent No.2 adhering to the provisions of law and the instructions issued from time to time, prepared a provisional selection list for 22 posts, in which the petitioner’s name is also shown. Subsequently as per G.O.Ms.No.33 Agriculture & Cooperation (H & S) Department, dated 17.05.2017 cancelled the selection and entrusted the selection process to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. – TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ALLOWED and set aside the tribunal order.

2020[7]APHC [2] Recall, Reopen & Receiving of documents – When to be allowed ? – Merely because the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross examine DW.1, when once these documents are produced and exhibited, it cannot be stated that whatever right or advantage the petitioner had secured on account of nature of evidence let in by the respondents could be allowed to be watered down on such reason assigned by learned trial Judge

2020[7]APHC [2] Recall, Reopen & Receiving of documents – When to be allowed ? – Merely because the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross examine DW.1, when once these documents are produced and exhibited, it cannot be stated that  whatever right or advantage the petitioner had secured on account of nature of evidence let… Read More 2020[7]APHC [2] Recall, Reopen & Receiving of documents – When to be allowed ? – Merely because the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross examine DW.1, when once these documents are produced and exhibited, it cannot be stated that whatever right or advantage the petitioner had secured on account of nature of evidence let in by the respondents could be allowed to be watered down on such reason assigned by learned trial Judge

2020[7]APHC [1] – Anticipatory bail – what should be considered at the time of hearing of bail petition -The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the Public/State.

2020[7]APHC [1] – Anticipatory bail – what should be considered at the time of hearing of bail petition -The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which… Read More 2020[7]APHC [1] – Anticipatory bail – what should be considered at the time of hearing of bail petition -The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the Public/State.

APSEB – Contract Labours – to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from that date. – the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records for verification of the data.

APSEB – Contract Labours – to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from that date. – the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records… Read More APSEB – Contract Labours – to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from that date. – the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records for verification of the data.

when the property is joint, every member has got right to enjoy unless and until the division takes place. so they are entitled for delcaration of joint rights & injunction

2020 APEX COURT [44 ]- Or.39, rule 1 & 2 CPC – when the property is joint, every member has got right to enjoy unless and until the division takes place. Suit for Declaration of their rights along with defendants in the church and parish as the bifurcation is not compulsory and for permanent injunction… Read More when the property is joint, every member has got right to enjoy unless and until the division takes place. so they are entitled for delcaration of joint rights & injunction

when the suit was dismissed for default, taking written statement and counter claim on record and passing an exparte decree in the court claim is bad in law

2020 APEX COURT [42 ]- when the suit was dismissed for default, taking written statement and counter claim on record and passing an exparte decree in the court claim is bad in law . On 5 August 2016, the suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed in default. The counter claim, which was filed by… Read More when the suit was dismissed for default, taking written statement and counter claim on record and passing an exparte decree in the court claim is bad in law

When the issue before the High Court was the correctness of the ad-interim injunction granted and nothing more. Then the High Court at this stage clearly can not exceed its jurisdiction and strike out the plaint.

2020 APEX COURT [41 ]- When the issue before the High Court was the correctness of the ad-interim injunction granted and nothing more. Then the High Court at this stage clearly can not exceed its jurisdiction and strike out the plaint.The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming title on… Read More When the issue before the High Court was the correctness of the ad-interim injunction granted and nothing more. Then the High Court at this stage clearly can not exceed its jurisdiction and strike out the plaint.

Passing off is a common law right which protects goodwill in the business against misrepresentation in the course of the trade. Goodwill is the benefit and advantage of name and reputation that goods or services of a business acquire over the years under a brand name or mark, such that the purchasers perceive the brand name or mark as being distinctive of the reputable goods or services. When another person sells his wares or provides services unauthorizedly under the brand name or mark to take advantage of the goodwill earned by the owner of the mark, his misrepresentation can deceive the purchasers to believe that his goods or services belong to the owner of the mark. Such an erroneous belief can damage or is likely to cause damage to the goodwill of the owner of the mark.

2020 APEX COURT [40 ]- Passing off is a common law right which protects goodwill in the business against misrepresentation in the course of the trade. Goodwill is the benefit and advantage of name and reputation that goods or services of a business acquire over the years under a brand name or mark, such that… Read More Passing off is a common law right which protects goodwill in the business against misrepresentation in the course of the trade. Goodwill is the benefit and advantage of name and reputation that goods or services of a business acquire over the years under a brand name or mark, such that the purchasers perceive the brand name or mark as being distinctive of the reputable goods or services. When another person sells his wares or provides services unauthorizedly under the brand name or mark to take advantage of the goodwill earned by the owner of the mark, his misrepresentation can deceive the purchasers to believe that his goods or services belong to the owner of the mark. Such an erroneous belief can damage or is likely to cause damage to the goodwill of the owner of the mark.