Andhra Pradesh Court October 1958 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Padma Chandriah Vs. Pamjwomi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP122; 1960CriLJ302
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. P.W. 7 is the petitioner from whom one imitation stone and 12 diamonds were recovered in connection with Criminal Case No. 35/5/56. The Additional District Munsif and First Class Magistrate of Secunderabad, in his order discharging the accused, observes that P.W. 8 (the complainant) and P.W. 9 recognised these articles as belonging to the complainant and from this he deduces that the ownership of these diamonds and stones and another lock was with P.W. 8 and also concludes that they were stolen.He seeks to construe the decision in Muthiah Muthirian v. Vairaperumal Muthirian, : AIR1954Mad214 , as enjoining upon him to give possession of these articles to the complainant in the case. The revision application filed by P.W. 7 before the District Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the orders of the learned Munsif-Magistrate was dismissed thereby upholding the reasons given, by the trial Court for departing from the general principle that the property produced before a ...
Sagarla Pitchamma and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narasamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP425; 1959CriLJ1957
ORDERMunikannaih, J.1. This Revision under Section 438 Criminal P.C., arises out of the dropping of the petition filed under Section 145, Criminal P.C., by the Munsif Magistrate, Nalgonda, on the ground that none on behalf of the parties is present and hence it appeared to him that no dispute in respect of the house likely to cause a breach of peace existed. The second party filed an application for revising the orders before the Sessions Judge at Nalgonda. He considered the facts of the case and concluded that the proper order in the circumstances to pass is under Section 146, Criminal P.C., and not under Section 145, Sub-section (5).This reference is made by him with the recommendation for remanding the case to the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate either to take action under Section 146, Criminal P.C., or to decide the question of actual possession on merits after hearing the arguments of parties or after going through the record.2. Mr. Suryaprakasam, the learned counsel for the first ...
Balde Mukundayya and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Throu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP394
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Board of Revenue in file No. 45/87/1956, dated 31-7-1957 passed in confirmation of the order of the Commissioner, of Excise, Hyderabad dated 10-12-1955.2. The petitioners obtained a contract front the Government of Hyderabad for sale of liquor in the Khammam group of six shops for the year 1950-51, having become the highest bidders in the public auction. They paid the rentals for a few months regularly and thereafter defaulted in paying the same. This led the Department to start proceedings for the realisation of the arrears of rentals as arrears of land revenue.At that stage, the petitioners approached the authorities concerned to pay them compensation for the loss they sustained as result of the shifting of the shops from the middle of the town to sites outside the abadi selected by the Sites Selection Committee of Khammam and also on account of the shifting of some of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›