PDS rice is being transported and seized the vehicle under Occurrence report. =basing on occurrence report, crime was registered against the petitioner and vehicle has been seized, the 3rd respondent is directed to release the petitioner’s vehicle vide Registration No.AP 39 W 4698 who is said to be owner of the vehicle, on condition of the petitioner furnishing self bond for the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle to the respondents with an undertaking that they will not alienate, alter, mortgage or create any third party right in respect of the vehicle in question and he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the authorities

 PDS rice is being transported and seized the vehicle under Occurrence report. =basing on occurrence report, crime was registered against the petitioner and vehicle has been seized, the 3rd respondent is directed to release the petitioner’s vehicle vide Registration No.AP 39 W 4698 who is said to be owner of the vehicle, on condition of… Read More PDS rice is being transported and seized the vehicle under Occurrence report. =basing on occurrence report, crime was registered against the petitioner and vehicle has been seized, the 3rd respondent is directed to release the petitioner’s vehicle vide Registration No.AP 39 W 4698 who is said to be owner of the vehicle, on condition of the petitioner furnishing self bond for the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle to the respondents with an undertaking that they will not alienate, alter, mortgage or create any third party right in respect of the vehicle in question and he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the authorities

WRIT – direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and file final report in any event not latter than two (02) months from today.

WRIT –  direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and file final report in any event not latter than two (02) months from today. AP HIGH COURT Main Number WP 14332/2020 SR Number WPSR 17718/2020 Petitioner Lingisetty Naga Rajeswari Respondent The State of Andhra Pradesh… Read More WRIT – direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and file final report in any event not latter than two (02) months from today.

Sections 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “S.C. and S.T. Act”). But no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued though it is mandatory in terms of Judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another1. Therefore, the respondents violated the guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (referred supra), prays to direct the respondents to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to this petitioner before taking further action during investigation.

 Sections 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “S.C. and S.T. Act”). But no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued though it is mandatory in terms of Judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of… Read More Sections 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “S.C. and S.T. Act”). But no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued though it is mandatory in terms of Judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another1. Therefore, the respondents violated the guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (referred supra), prays to direct the respondents to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to this petitioner before taking further action during investigation.

NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is… Read More NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder… Read More POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

For violation injunction order also urgent action is required to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was obtained in by the petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4. In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC. Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as complained by this petitioner. – WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE

For violation injunction order also urgent action is required to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was obtained in by the petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4. In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and… Read More For violation injunction order also urgent action is required to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was obtained in by the petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4. In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC. Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as complained by this petitioner. – WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE

Suit for possession is to be filed with in 12 years when the defendant claimed possession as of it’s owner – in the absence of proof of tenancy and in the absence of proof of prior possession , the suit is liable to be dismissed eventhough title is proved by the plaintiff , even though there was no specific plea of adverse possession specifically and directly in the defence pleadings by the defendant as the suit is barred under sec.3 of limitation Act due to lack of proof of earlier possession before filing the suit.

Suit for possession is to be filed with in 12 years when the defendant claimed possession as of it’s owner – in the absence of proof of tenancy and in the absence of proof of prior possession , the suit is liable to be dismissed eventhough title is proved by the plaintiff , even though… Read More Suit for possession is to be filed with in 12 years when the defendant claimed possession as of it’s owner – in the absence of proof of tenancy and in the absence of proof of prior possession , the suit is liable to be dismissed eventhough title is proved by the plaintiff , even though there was no specific plea of adverse possession specifically and directly in the defence pleadings by the defendant as the suit is barred under sec.3 of limitation Act due to lack of proof of earlier possession before filing the suit.

Thequestion relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Scheduleof the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament tolegislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative BANKS

  1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5674 OF 2009PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE … APPELLANTVERSUSVISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARIBANK LIMITED … RESPONDENTWITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5684 OF 2009CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5682 OF 2009CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5681 OF 2009CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10871 OF 2010CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5675 OF 2009CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2384 OF 2020(@ SPECIAL… Read More Thequestion relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Scheduleof the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament tolegislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative BANKS

Challenge the validity of the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.=We cannot ignore the fact that a similar G.O. was issued by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986, which was quashed by the State Administrative Tribunal, against which an appeal was preferred in this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1998. After withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, it was expected of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh not to resort to such illegality of providing 100% reservation once again. But instead, it issued G.O. Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was equally impermissible, even if the A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997 would have been amended, in that event also providing reservation beyond 50% was not permissible. It was least expected from the functionary like Government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by the dictum laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 151 100% reservation. It is unfortunate that illegal exercise done in 1986 was sought to be protected by yet another unconstitutional attempt by issuing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years have passed. In the peculiar circumstance, we save the appointments conditionally that the reorganised States i.e. the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to attempt a similar exercise in the future. We direct the respondents­States not to exceed the limits of reservation in future. Ordered accordingly.

1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO.3609 OF 2002CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO & ORS. … APPELLANTSVERSUSSTATE OF A.P. & ORS. … RESPONDENTSWITHCIVIL APPEAL NO.7040 OF 2002J U D G M E N TARUN MISHRA, J. In the reference, the validity of the Government Office Ms. No.3dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State… Read More Challenge the validity of the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.=We cannot ignore the fact that a similar G.O. was issued by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986, which was quashed by the State Administrative Tribunal, against which an appeal was preferred in this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1998. After withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, it was expected of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh not to resort to such illegality of providing 100% reservation once again. But instead, it issued G.O. Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was equally impermissible, even if the A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997 would have been amended, in that event also providing reservation beyond 50% was not permissible. It was least expected from the functionary like Government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by the dictum laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 151 100% reservation. It is unfortunate that illegal exercise done in 1986 was sought to be protected by yet another unconstitutional attempt by issuing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years have passed. In the peculiar circumstance, we save the appointments conditionally that the reorganised States i.e. the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to attempt a similar exercise in the future. We direct the respondents­States not to exceed the limits of reservation in future. Ordered accordingly.