Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755
1. The judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the Full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.2. The matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum? 4. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1.11.1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-21-2004
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD1; 2004(5)ALT634
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Several of the most devisive moral conflicts that have beset us Indians, in the period since the dawn of independence have been transmuted into constitutional conflicts - conflicts what the Constitution of India forbids - and resolved as such. The most prominent instances include the conflicts over Federalism, Secularism, sex- based discrimination and affirmative action. The conflicts over affirmative action programme occupy a large space.2. The great bulk of constitutional litigation concerns State enactments and nearly all of that litigation purports to be based on a single sentence of Article 14 and, indeed, on one or the other of two pairs of words, 'equality before the law' and 'equal protection of the laws'. If the Constitution is the embodiment of our aspirations, it must have become so very largely because of those two pairs of words. Each is a protection with centuries of history behind it, often dearly bought with the blood and lives of people determi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-17-2004
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)492; 2004(4)ALT449
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.CASE OF PETITIONER:1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Hyderabad. It deals with software products known as Student Performance Evaluation and Counselling Software (SPECS). The programme is said to be popular and being used more than three hundred Schools. The petitioner came in contact with Dr. S. Sujendra Prakash of Bangalore who partly developed the Software known as OBTYS for imparting memory training to school children. As he could not market, he gave the software to petitioner with a 'source code'. Petitioner developed on visual basic platform. OBTYS is executable programme with voice and video interaction and as per market survey, it has market of Rs. 125 crores globally. Petitioner approached M/s. Madhusudhan Reddy and Mr. Dhruv Chowdary of M/s. Burgandy Tradings, New Delhi to be international dealers. They were given the source code to develop a system of different voice and video interaction. An a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-27-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD572; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)498
G. Biskhapathy, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 2188 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, filed Criminal Petition No. 2332 of 2002 to quash the proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), on the ground that the complaint against him, presented by the General Power of Attorney of the payee of the cheque issued by him, which was dishonoured, is not maintainable in view of S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta, (DB). When the said petition came up for hearing before one of us (C.Y. Somayajulu, J.), since Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, and Section 183 of Contract Act, 1872, recognizing the principle Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se were not considered while rendering the said decision, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the ratio in that decision in view of those provisions, and directed the Registry to post the case before an appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-27-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ALT607; III(2005)BC111; 2005(2)CTC417; [2005(3)JCR390(AP)]
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The accused in C.C.No. 2188 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, filed Criminal Petition No. 2332 of 2002 to quash the proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), on the ground that the complaint against him, presented by the General Power of Attorney of the payee of the cheque issued by him, which was dishonoured, is not maintainable in view of S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta, 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 497 = 2002 Crl.L.J. 2621 (A.P.)(D.B.). When the said petition came up for hearing before one of us (C.Y. Somayajulu, J.), since Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, and Section 183 of Contract Act, 1872, recognizing the principle QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE were not considered while rendering the said decision, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the ratio in that decision in view of those provisions, and directed the Registry to post the case befor...
Tag this Judgment!