Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through  Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nande Belliappa (1) 2006(3) ALT (Crl) 276 SC = 2006 6 SCC 456

2015 (4) ALT 447, CRP 4904 of 2013  Pushmala Reddy Vs Janga Raghava Reddy.

RTI Act -Frivolous applications not to be entertained

Frivolous applications not to be entertained In the case of S.K. Lal vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC /OK /A / 2006 /00268-272, dt: 29.12.2006) the applicant had filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for “ all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. The public authority, however, did not provide him with the information requested. DECISION: The Central Information Commission observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications. The CIC held that asking for “all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways, “only amounts to making a mockery of the Act

Employees seeking information relating to promotions and other decisions taken by higher authorities -RTI Act- Decison of CIC

The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. In the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Department of Post, the appellant had sought following information. The name of the officer who raised the query as to whether the appellant had taken permission of the respondent for joining a Ph.D. course; and The name of the officer who took the decision to relieve the appellant while he was posted at Shimla and whether the officer was competent to take such decision. He had also sought `file notings‟ with respect to the above. The CPIO informed him that his relieving order was issued in compliance with the orders of DG (Posts). As regards disclosure of `file notings‟, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that `file notings‟ was confidential. The appellant made his first appeal and the appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. DECISION: The information sought has been furnished, except the `file notings‟ with regard to the official who raised the query as to whether the appellant had obtained the official permission for doing the Ph.D course. The part of `file notings‟ containing the orders of the DG (Posts) for relieving him from the post, the then held by the appellant has been similarly denied. The `file notings‟ in the instant case, contain information relating to transfer/posting. The competent authority of the respondent may have taken the decision keeping in view of the overall interests of the respondent. It is, therefore, not for any employee, how-so-ever he may be affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the competent authority. The disclosure of such information is not in the public interest as the appellant has asked for the information for promotion of his personal interest. Therefore, the CPIO is justified in denying the information sought, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in
- 23 -
the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest. This appeal is in no way exception. In the instant case, the information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man.

Application Under RTI not maintainable where invetigation is pending -CIC decision

Information can not be disclosed till the investigations are over. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS The Appellant sought the detail of complete proceedings / records of the investigation being carried out against the appellant with regard to enquiry in to the Lakhanpur and Bhanuth / Shambhu check posts in J & K and Punjab respectively as the SCN in the matter has been issued and the investigations are complete. The CPIO denied the information to the Appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that the investigation in the matter are still pending in view of Hon‟ble CIC‟s decision in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and M/s First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Directorate of Income Tax, Mumbai.

RTI Applications filed before Courts for furnishing copies of orders or judgments etc., Decision of CIC

Appellant can not take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Appeal NO.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007), it was held that Judicial Authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that the action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that Judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement.

Useful citations for MV OP Claimants

1. Loss of estate - principles laid down in the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors . v . Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

2. Loss of consortium -principles laid down  in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.

3. To Children towards loss of love and affection due to the loss of their father(deceased) -  Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.

4. To parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son -Principles laid down in the case of M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

5. Interest on the compensation amount - principles laid down in the case  of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy

Useful citation for Inam Lands -

Andhra High Court
K.G.Krishna Murthy (Died) Per ... vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ...
on 22 October, 2007
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
Writ Petition No.2385 of 1998
Inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions -no person shall be to be registered as occupant even in respect of occupant relating to Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants but the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all Inam lands. Further any registration shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration.

Some of useful citations

Impleading of Judge- Judge who passed an order in his judicial capacity cannot be made party in any proceedings filed against such order. HC-590-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------WP 6603 of 201 4 date 25-02-2014 A.PHC  Varuana Investment Port Louis Ms/ Asian Infrastructure.

Court has power to grant permission to non-lawyers to plead/argue cases in certain special circumstances and if such circumstances exist in particulate case HC-578-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------CRP 2191 of 2012 date 23-12-2013APHC.

Pecuniary jurisdiction for filing an appeal against decree in the suit is value of the suit and not the value of appeal which may include subsequent interest HC-459-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------CCCA(SR) no. 1172 of 2014 date 06-03-2014 APHC

IN case of  execution of documents by male, his left thumb impression be taken on the documents – If it is not possible, the impression of any other fingers of left hand be taken  on tit duly making endorsement to that effect. Only in case of amputation of left hand, the impression of right thumb cane be taken by making an endorsement to that effect.  HC-462-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------              LPA Nos. 180 and 182of 2002  date 21-01-2014 A.PHC

2013(5) ALT 489- WP no. 12441 of 2010 25-04-2013 d.leelavathi vs director of mines

Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to issue Family Member certificate

some of recent useful citations

Enforcement of order of maintenance by detention does not wipe out the liability  to pay.  3241 SC, WP Criminal 57/2014 Date: 06-05-2014, Subrata Roy s Union of India Para 59.

Application for statutory bail has to be decided on same date it is filed – SC 3952-Cr.A.No. 786/2010 Date: 30-06-2014- Union of India through CBI Vs Nirala Yadava – 2014 Crl.L.J 3952.

Witness Once recalled , does not prevent his further recall- 2014- Cr.L.J-4072 S.C, Crl. Appeal No. 1307/2014 arising SLP Crl. No. 8395 of 2012 Date: 03-07-2014 Manan sk & ors V State of West Bengal & Anr.

Ancestral Property – The property obtained by the coparcener on partition is ancestral joint family property in which sons born to him or adopted by him subsequently have rights of partition therein.2014(5)ALT 473- As 999/1995 and Trl.A.S.88/2010 date 28-04-2014 –agina chandra moulli vs agina varamma

Contract – If a contract contains any stipulation for transfer of property in case of breach of such contract, which is in the nature of penalty, the contract cannot be enforced 2014(5)ALT 608- CRP 1578 of 2009 and AS 2443 of 1999 date 27-12-2013 M. Ali baig Vs Kottalla Sanjeeva Reddy (Case on - Loan repayment agreement- in case of failure to get land registered on his name) character of document

Return of documents to third parties in criminal cases. - 2014(5)ALT 564- WP  No.4915 of 2014 date 20-02-2014  –peddapalem toddy co-operative society limited and govt of ap.

Transfers of Cases- The Principal Courts having power to make over cases filed before them to other courts for disposal shall group the identical cases and transfer them to a single court as far as possible to avoid conflicting judgments. 2014(5)ALT 559- MACMA 564 of 2009  date 09-06-2014, National insurance company Yanam vs muthyala bhaskara suraknathamma

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15315 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.11 of 2014 on the file of the S.J.F.C.M. for Railways, Nellore, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime registered for an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Amendment Act, 2012.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.11 of 2014, he restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the Investigating agency to follow the conditions stipulated in Section 41 CrPC. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.
Section 41 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
When police may arrest without warrant.
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person (a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizance offence;
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists than he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:-
(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessarya) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or
b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the police officer; or
e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing; (Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.) In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014), the Apex Court held as under: 

1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.
2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41 (1) (b) (ii);
3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
4) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate high court.
The Apex Court also held that “ the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases were offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.”
From the above it is clear that the police officer, before arresting any person, has to be satisfied that such an arrest is necessary in terms of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and he has to record reasons while making such arrest. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the nature of allegations made, it is ordered that the investigating officer while exercising discretion, whether or not to arrest the petitioners herein, under Section 41 Cr.P.C. shall scrupulously follow the conditions stipulated therein and also the judgment of the Apex Court, before taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this criminal petition, shall also stand closed.

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J
16th December, 2014

at scrutiny stage of the case, no court can appreciate merits of case and reject plaint on the ground that case of plaintiff is not well founded or devoid of any merits unless defect goes to root of matter

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KUDUMULA KISHORE REDDY V/S KUDUMULA KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS
Date of Decision: 20 July 2010
Citation: 2010 LawSuit(AP) 270
Hon'ble Judges: Gopala Krishna Tamada
Appeal T ype: Civil Revision Petition
Appeal No: 2729 of 2010
Subject: Civil, Constitution
Acts Referred:
Constitution Of India Art 227
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or 7R 10A, Or 7R 11, Or 7R 10
Final Decision: Petition allowed
Eq. Citations: 2010 (5) ALD 232, 2010 (5) ALT 130, 2010 (3) APL J 188
Advocates: K Sreenivas
CASES REFERRED :
BOSE & CO. V. G. SRIKANTH, 2006 4 ALT 589
RAM PRAKASH GUPTA V. RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA, 2007 TLS 44721
SURYALAXMI COTTON MILLS LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD V. SABHAVATH KISHORE, 2008 5 ALD 82
THANAMKI PRASAD V. GUNTAMADUGU PULLAMMA AND ORS., 2005 4 ALD 247
JUDGMENT TEXT:-
Gopala Krishna T amada, J.
[1] This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated
28.06.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar in CFR No. 2552 of 2010 whereby the plaint filed by the petitioner herein was returned.
[2] Facts, in brief, are that the revision petitioner filed the suit for partition in C.F.R. No. 2552 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar seeking partition and separate possession of his due share out of the suit schedule property basing on a W ill dated 27.12.2006 said to have been executed by his paternal grand father by name Kudumula Janga Reddy, who is the half share holder of the suit schedule property. However, the court below took an objection stating that the suit for partition is not maintainable basing on a W ill and returned the plaint by its order dated 28.06.2010. The same is questioned in this revision.
[3] Since the present issue is in between the Court and the petitioner, the usual notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
[4] The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Srinivas contended that at the stage of numbering of the suit itself, the court below had gone into the merits of the case and decided the issue involved in the suit which amounts to final disposal of the matter. He further contended that by virtue of the said W ill dated 27.12.2006, after the death of Janga Reddy the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the said Jangareddy who is a coparcener of respondents 1 to 4 and can seek for partition of the suit schedule properties as per the said W ill. He finally contended that though the Court below had simply returned the plaint, but, it amounts to rejection of plaint since the plaint is returned not for presentation of the same before proper court as envisaged under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and hence the order impugned in this revision amounts to an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and becomes a reversible order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on 1) Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Limited, Secunderabad v. Sabhavath Kishore, 2008 5 ALD 82, Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta,2007 TLS 44721, Thanamki Prasad v. Guntamadugu Pullamma and Ors., 2005 4 ALD 247 and Bose & Co. v. G. Srikanth, 2006 4 ALT 589.
[5] Keeping in view of the specific contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:
Return of Plaint: (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10-A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
[6] In view of the above legal provision, this Court, when it looks into the order impugned in this revision, is of the opinion that the said order passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar is contrary to the above said legal provision since the plaint was not returned for want of jurisdiction and for presentation of the same before the competent court having jurisdiction. So on that aspect the order impugned is contrary to the legal provision since the language of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code is not attracted. Hence it should be treated as an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC i.e. rejection of plaint, which reads as under:
Rejection of Plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
a) W here it does not disclose a cause of action,
b) W here the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
c) W here the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
d) W here the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
[7] As seen from the order impugned it is clear that the learned District has gone deep into the merits and probabilities of the case and came to the conclusion that as per the documents field by the petitioner already a partition was effected between the father of the petitioner and his brothers and further stated that since the plaintiff is relying on the W ill deed in support of his case, the suit for partition is not maintainable. This finding, in the considered opinion of this Court is unwarranted at the stage of numbering the suit.                                                                                                                     [8] Further, as seen from the impugned order, the learned District Judge observed that the claim for partition of part of ancestral property is not maintainable, which in my considered opinion is also not correct inasmuch when there are numerous cause of actions joined in one claim, it is not permissible to the court to reject the claim if it is possible to give a decree for some of the cause of actions. So instead of taking some part of the averments of the plaint, the court should have taken the pleadings of the plaint entirety.
[9] In Thanamki Prasad case (3 supra) a learned Judge of this Court held that at scrutiny stage of the case, no court can appreciate merits of case and reject plaint on the ground that case of plaintiff is not well founded or devoid of any merits unless defect goes to root of matter.
[10] In the facts and circumstances above, this Court is of the view that the court below, as rightly
contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court, but it had straight away returned the same without any further course of action to be followed, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Accordingly the said order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
[11] In the result, this revision is allowed and the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar in CFR No. 2552 of 2010 is hereby set aside. The court below is hereby directed to number the suit and proceed in accordance with law. No costs.