SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 430

V.BHASKARA RAO
K. RAMULU – Appellant
Versus
K. NARSIMULU – Respondent


V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a review petition against the order dated 3-4-1998 in CRP No. 3037 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE Review Petition arises in the following circumstances. Sri A. Panduranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners was not keeping good health for some time during the period preceding 3-4-1998. The Civil revision Petition was adjourned several times on that ground and ultimately the order under review has been passed after hearingsri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. Aggrieved by that order, this Review petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI A. Panduranga Rao, (sic.) learned Counsel for the respondent has been heard at length in the main Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the docket order dated 9-8-1996 in O. S. No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Sanga Reddy.

( 4 ) THE following question has been formulated for consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge, "whether the document in question is an award, compulsorily registrable under Section 49 read with Section 17 (l) (c) of the Registration Act and if so whether it is admissible in evidence. "

( 5 ) AFTER setting out the pleas of both sides, the contents of the docume











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top