(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,  Section 118—Presumption as to consideration—The defendant admitted execution of the suit promissory notes but contended that they were not supported by consideration—It was held that under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there exists a statutory presumption that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration—Once execution is admitted, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut this presumption—In the present case, the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving lack of consideration—Accordingly, the Court held that the suit promissory notes were duly supported by consideration and enforceable in law. (Paras 29 - 30) (B) Contract Act, 1872,  Section 70—Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous ac...

Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, S.47 | S.9 | S.10 | S.23 | S.17—Custody denied—The court, while deciding the custody battle between the father and the maternal relatives of the minor, prioritized the child’s welfare over the natural guardian’s right—Despite the father’s acquittal in the murder case of the child’s mother, the child had consistently deposed against him and expressed fear and unwillingness to stay with him—The court observed that the child had been in the care of the maternal relatives for over seven years, was admitted to a reputed school, and was emotionally stable and secure with them—Financial and emotional stability provided by the respondents, along with the child’s own clear and consistent preference, guided the court’s decision to deny custody to the fa...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 and 142—Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 7—Res-Subjudice, when not applicable—Cheque bounce criminal complaint and Recovery suit relying upon Promissory Note, maintainable— A bald plea was taken by the defendants in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a forged document—As noticed supra, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining the sole attestor to Ex.A-1 as P.W.2—To rebut the said evidence, the defendants did not produce any evidence except examining the 1st defendant as D.W.1 and also did not take any steps to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to a handwriting expert—For the aforesaid reasons, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and on re-appreciation of the en...

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging concurrent findings of fact by the Trial and First Appellate Courts in a money recovery suit based on two promissory notes, the High Court held there was no substantial question of law warranting interference—The plaintiff had sued for recovery of Rs. 2,08,089/- based on promissory notes executed by the defendant—The Trial Court decreed the suit after the plaintiff (P.W.1) and a witness (P.W.2) were examined, and original promissory notes (Exs.A.1 & A.2) were marked—The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree, noting that the defendant, despite multiple opportunities, failed to adduce any evidence or rebut the plaintiff's case—The High Court reaffirmed that promissory notes are not compulsorily attestable documents and upheld the presumption under Secti...

Registration Act, 1908—Section 22A—These connected Writ Appeals and Writ Petition, the land in dispute, initially granted as a ryotwari patta by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to the vendor of the 1st respondent, was sought to be registered by the 1st respondent as a gift settlement deed—The Sub-Registrar refused registration, citing the land as "Government land" and thus prohibited from registration—The 1st respondent's earlier Writ Petition was dismissed, but liberty was given to approach the District Collector for a no-objection certificate—Despite the District Collector's rejection, the learned Single Judge allowed the registration, ruling that the ryotwari patta remained in force—The Government contended the land was "kaluvaporamboke" (water channel) and that no ryotwari pat...

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 50—The Criminal Revision Case was filed against the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, on 18.09.2024—The petitioners, who were arrested on 17.04.2024, were remanded to judicial custody and prayed for bail—The judge granted bail conditions to the accused, directing them to attend to the station house officer Nandyal II Town Police Station every Saturday and Wednesday until filing the charge sheet—However, the prosecution filed a complaint in September 2024, claiming that the bail conditions had not been complied with—The judge cancelled the bail granted to the accused, leading to the present revision—The petitioners argue that the court committed a grave error in cancelling bail without serving notice t...

Divorce granted. (A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)—Appeal by Husband to impugn dismissal of divorce petition—The case of the petitioner husband, was that there was desertion by the wife without any cause and also causing mental cruelty—The learned trial court has stated the reason that the petitioner used to suspect the character of the wife and observed that, that would be the justified reason for the wife living separately and consequently the desertion was not made out—The evidence of R.W.1—In the chief examination though she stated that the petitioner was suspecting the character, but there is no corroboration of the said evidence of the wife by any other witness—In fact, no other witness was produced by her—The petitioner is the cousin of the mother of the respondent—I...

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 17—Constitution of India, Article 226—Habeas Corpus Writ petition to recover son, from estranged wife—In the instant case, the boy Gautam Ramineni was born in America and he was a native citizen over there and he was studying in Dallas till February, 2023 and at that juncture, in March, 2023, the 2nd respondent brought her son to India and of course admitted in a local school at Rajamahendravaram—Therefore, it is needless to emphasize that the boy was born and brought up for considerable period and he adapted to the foreign conditions rather than acclimatizing to Indian conditions—Admittedly, he was suffering with health problems now and then though not of serious nature—So taking the welfare of the minor child i.e., his education, health and future, it appears...

Representation of the People Act, 1951—Sections 80—Writ petition challenged proceedings regarding the counting of postal ballots for voters on election duty, specifically questioning the validity of certain memos and letters issued by the respondents—The petitioners argued these proceedings contravened statutory provisions and rules under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961—They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar to argue that the proceedings were arbitrary and ultra vires—The respondents contended that the issues raised constituted an election dispute under Section 100 of the R.P. Act, 1951, which should be resolved through an election petition post-election—The court concluded that the proceedings di...

Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, the court examined whether the petitioners should have retired at the age of 60 instead of 58—The petitioners cited the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, which set the retirement age at 60 for government employees—The court noted that the petitioners, being employees of a cooperative bank, did not qualify as government employees under the relevant Acts—It was also observed that entities listed in Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, received retrospective benefits regarding retirement age, which did not apply to the petitioners—The court held that cooperative societies like the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank had autonomy under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societ...