Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing N.A. Siddiqui vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 June, 1972

Allam Ramu And Anr. vs Yelakacherla Narasimhulu on 26 October, 2007

In N.A.Siddiqui's case (1 supra) the petitioner/plaintiff along with the deceased-Syed Abdul Majed executed an unregistered surety bond for grant of scholarship in favour of Dr.Mir Ahmed Ali, an employee working in the Medical Department in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to qualify himself as M.R.C.P. within a period of three years and the scholarship committee without plaintiff's consent or that of other surety permitted the scholar to prolong his stay in the United Kingdom beyond the stipulated period of three years at his own expenses for obtaining the said qualification of M.R.C.P. The plaintiff did not agree to the extension of the period of deputation. The plaintiff for not informing how much amount was spent and when the scholar was actually declared as a defaulter sought to enforce the surety bond for the amounts due under the bond filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from initiating the any proceeding.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravipudi Bramaramba And Anr. vs Ravipudi Venkateswarulu And Anr. on 1 September, 1997

He also relied on a judgment of this Court in N.A. Siddiqui v. State of A.P., , wherein it is held, "On a perusal of the averments contained in the plaint, what is clear is that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is not a declaratory one; on the other hand, it is one for injunction. If it is one for injunction, the provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 26 of the Court-Fees Act are directly attracted, in which case, the Court-fee paid on the valuation by the plaintiff is correct, but, the Court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the relief of injunction cannot be granted unless a declaration also is granted to the effect that the surety bond has become void. In that context, the Court below proceeded on the footing that the relief of injunction as prayed for shall have to be construed as if it is a consequential relief, the main relief being one for declaration. Incidentally, I find the Court below relying upon provisions contained in Order 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, I do not find that there is any relevance in referring to that provision of law in determining the question raised in this case. We may, instantly note that Section 24 of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 deals with the subject-matter of 'suits for declaration', whereas Section 26 of the Act deals with the subject-matter of 'suits for injunction.' When it is disclosed in the plaint that the relief is not one for declaration but for injunction only, and the plaintiff has been given the liberty to value the relief and when he sought to bring the case within the purview of clause (c) of Section 26 of the Court-Fees Act, it is not for the Court, at this stage, to go into the question whether the injunction relief could be considered as a consequential relief, the main relief being one for declaration, and as the Supreme Court has observed in the decision referred to heretofore that invariably, in every case where injunction relief is sought for, it may be on the basis that some act or action or activity on the part of the authorities concerned is not warranted by law. But, insofar as any declaration is not sought for in that direction and when the relief was confined exclusively to injunction, as in the case here before me, it is not open for the Court to read something into the section which is not there. If, ultimately it is found, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that the relief of permanent injunction without a declaration cannot be decreed it may be dismissed then, but in the case, as it stands at present, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to have his suit treated as one for declaration, treating the relief for injunction as a consequential one."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K B Siddappa - Full Document
1