Issuance of Check in favour of the Decree Holder

The petitioner/plaintiff/creditor has filed a Suit for Recovery before the Hon’ble 1st Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad. The Court has issued a summons to the Debtor to appear before the court. But the defendant failed to appear on the said date of hearing. The Hon’ble Court after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff/creditor. Thereafter the decree holder has filed a E.P.for realization of decreetal amount for an amount of Rs. 1,67. 248/-. The respondent/defendant/debtor in E.P. proceedings was also did not present before the court. The Hon’ble Court attached his salary by issuing salary attachment warrants. The Salary disbursing officer has sending the attachment amount after deductions made from the salary and an amount of Rs. 28,000/- layed in the suit account. Thereafter the decree holder has filed a check/cheque petition to issue check in favour of the petitioner/decree holder. The court after taking sworn statement of the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed and issued a check in favour of the petitioner.

Withholds part of gratuity amount of the Employee

The complainant was an employee in the APSRTC. On attaining his superannuation the complainant was retired from service in the year 1995. At the time of retirement from his service the respondent/APSRTC deducted an mount of Rs. 42,000/- from his gratuity amount on the ground that he has not exercised the Employees Family Pension Scheme (EFPS) in the year 1971 as per Employees Family Pension Scheme (EFPS). As per rules that the every employee shall excise Employees Family Pension Scheme (EFPS) within 6 months from the date of publication of rules and also declare his/her employees nominee every 10 years (ten). As per rules the complainant has excised his option and became a member of the scheme. For that an amount was also deducted. The complainant was also declared his nominee i.e his wife. The authorities without verifying their records bluntly they deducted an amount of Rs.42,000/- on for become a new member of the above said scheme. For release of the said amount the complainant has filed a complaint before the Guntur District Forum. The District Fora after conducted the detailed enquiry, and found that the complainant was a old member of the above said scheme and directed the authorities to release the said amount with rate of interest. Thereafter the APSRTC has filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court and granted interim stay in the matter. At the time of final hearing the Hon’ble Court disposed of the said W.P. direct the APSRTC to approach appropriate forum. Again the APSRTC has filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission at Hyderabad, the said appeal was disposed of, as it is dismissed for default. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the respondent/respondent/complainant before the both the courts and obtained favorable order.

Rejected the regularization of service.

The applicant was worked as daily wage employee from 1987 to 1995. thereafter the respondents discontinued the applicant. Earlier the applicant has approached to the Tribunal/Court for regularization of his service. The court directed the authorizes to consider his case for regularization otherwise he found eligible and qualified. In the meanwhile the Government has imposed ban on recruitment. Again he approached to the Lokadalath for regularization of his service. The Hon’ble Lokadalath has rejected and directed to the applicant to approach the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. Filed O.A., heard at length by the Court. The Court did not accept the letter issued by the principle of Seva Mandir Residential School.
It is contended bys the respondent the there is no evidence to show the Applicant was worked in the said school. The ex-principle of the school has misrepresented to the higher authorities stating that there is no evidence to show that the applicant was worked in the school. Relining upon the information given by the principle, the Commissioner has filed a counter before the Court that there is no evidence to show that he worked in the said school. It is contended by the applicant the as per records only the said letter was issued stating that the applicant was worked from 1987 t0 1995.
But the court declined to accept the contentions raised by the applicant. In the result the O.A is dismissed no orders as to costs. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner. The applicant took steps for filing of Appeal before the High Court of A.P.

Affect of the Memo issued by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities

The petitioner purchased a plot an extent of 427.00 sq. yards situated at SR Nagar near Ameerpet Hyderabad District which was under Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The authorities considered the request of the petitioner and issued memo that the above mentioned land was fallen within the retainable are of the declarants and consequently question of handing over of the said area to the declarants would not arise to that effect a memo was issued. Thereafter the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board approaching the ULC authorities that the property belongs to them. The ULC authorities withdrawn the earlier memo dt. 19-5-2010 on the ground that there is a dispute regarding the said land.

Under these circumstance the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court. Questioning the action of the ULC authorities. The High Court after hearing the matter, that neither of them has effect of adjudicating on the rights of any of the parties. If the property purchased by the petitioner is within the retainable area of the declarants under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, they are entitled to assert their right as and when a dispute regarding the petitioners right and title over the said property is raised by any third party. In such an event, the impugned memos would not come in the way of the petitioners. Accordingly the W.P. disposed of. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner and before the Hon’ble High Court Hyderabad and got favorable orders.

Bail granted to the Accused U/Sec. 379,302,r/w 34 of IPC

The petitioner was arrested on the allegation the he and others were committed theft and murder U/Sec. 379,302,r/w 34 of IPC. He was in jail since 1 ½ year. Charge sheet was filed but returned. Several time charge sheet resubmitted to the Court and the same was returned for filing of proper charge sheet. It was also not clear as to why complete charge sheet is not filed.
Considering the circumstance of the case, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below Ongole Prakasam District. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner and before the Hon’ble High Court Hyderabad and got Bail.

Anticipatory Bail granted to the Accused U/s. 498A of Indian Peanl Code & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The wife filed a private complaint before the Hon’ble VII Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad. The allegations were under section 498-A, of IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act i.e. harassment for dowry and Dowry was given at the time of marriage. For grant of anticipatory bail the accused/petitioners approached to the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, after hearing the case that on the basis of the allegations made in a private complaint. The present case is registered.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. Therefore the High Court directed in the event of the petitioners surrendering themselves before the Station House Officer Vanasthalipuram Police station, Cyberabad within 10 days from today, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs, 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer referred above. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the husband and his family members before the Hon’ble High Court Hyderabad and got Anticipatory Bail.

Maintenance granted to widow daughter -in-law from the family members of the husband.

The husband of the petitioner was died. He was a member of Hindu Undivided family. As on the date of his death he lived together along with their respective families as members of Hindu undivided family and they are having huge properties and they are getting income Rs. 60,000/-p.m. Her father -in-law died in the year 2009. The said property are enjoying by the mother-in-law and brother-in-laws of the petitioner including her share of property of her husband. The counsel for the petitioner/widow contended that the petitioner is a dependent on the respondents i.e. mother-in-law and brother-in-laws as per sec. 20 of HAMAct. The Hon’ble Family court Hyderabad, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay maintenance and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-p.m. to the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law towards her maintenance from the date of the petition and further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within three months from the date of this order and shall continue to pay maintenance awarded on or before 10th succeeding month as the petitioner live or she remarries. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law before the Hon’ble Family Court Hyderabad and got favorable orders. widow daughter in law maintenance from mother in law's father properties

Divorce Granted by Mutual Consent

The Husband and wife were filed a petition for grant of mutual consent divorce before the Family Court Secunderabad. Petition filed by the wife and husband on the ground that the differences were arise between them and the same could not be resolved. The husband has taken all social measure for his wife and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to his wife through D.D. The Hon’ble Court after hearing the matter and granted the mutual consent divorce to the parties. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the husband and wife before the Hon’ble Family Court Secunderabad and got favorable orders.

Rejected/Refused Mutual consent Divorce.

The Husband and wife were filed petition for grant of mutual consent divorce before the Family Court Hyderabad. The husband obtained the signatures of the wife on the petition for divorce by misrepresentation and fraud. It is contended that the husband obtained the signatures of the wife on the petition for divorce by misrepresentation and fraud and failed to make social arrangement to the wife. The Hon’ble Court after hearing the matter and the court is declined to grant the mutual consent divorce and dismissed the case. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the wife before the Hon’ble Family Court Hyderabad and got favorable orders.

Regularisation of Service of NMR/Daily wages employee who have completed five years continous service

The applicant services were regularized as per G.O Rt dt. 10-2-199 in the post of Silpi Draughtsman inter terms of GOMs. No. 212 dt. 22-4-1994. He made a representation to regularize his services from the date of joining i.e.1-8-1990 to 10-2-1999. that was rejected by the Government in GORt dt. 20-8-2003. The applicant assails the same in the O.A. by contending that he is entitled for regularization of service at least from 25-11-1993 the date on which he has admittedly completed five years of service and the cut-off date mentioned in GO no. 212. it is contended that in view of the Supreme Court judgment the respondent shall be regularize with effect from the date or dates they completed Five years Continuous service. Therefore the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the service of the applicant w.e.f. 25-11-1993. but he is not eligible for arrears of pay. He is only eligible for notional fixation of pay. The above case was argued by me before the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and got favorable orders.

Acquitted in Murder case U/Sections 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the marriage of the appellant-accused with deceased was performed about six years back prior to the date of incident. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of four years and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child, who is aged about 1 ½ years as on the date of offence. Later, the accused addicted to bad vices like drinking and used to return home during night hours and used to beat the deceased demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The accused had been harassing the deceased mentally and physically for the last two years. Unable to tolerate the torture of the accused, the deceased used to inform her parents about the cruelty of the accused. On 7.1.2004 at about 2.30 hours, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and as usual demanded additional dowry and during such heated arguments, the accused grew wild, throttled her to death by pressing her throat and committed her murder. Later, in order to cause disappearance of evidence and to mislead the case, he poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set it on fire. The charges under Sections 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC have been framed against the accused. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and acquitted him of the said charge but found guilty of the charge under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment as aforementioned. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was present in the house at the time of occurrence. Hence, the principles laid down in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan cannot be made applicable to convict the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution, the appellant-accused cannot be convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The above said case was argued by me before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. on behalf of the accused and set him free.