Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
In Re: Pedda Amma Muttigadu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP469; 1959CriLJ1044
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. This is a revision petition filed under Sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C., seeking to quash the order of commitment made by the Munsif-Magistrate, Miryalaguda, by which the petitioners havei been committed for trial before the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda, on a charge under Section 304, I. P. C. This case paises an important question of procedure in inquiries preparatory to commitment in cases instituted on police reports and the question turns on the true construction of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 207-A, Cr. P. C.2. The facts leading up to this revision are asfollows:3. The Sub-Inspector of Police of Mahkapatnam filed a charge-sheet before the Munsif-Magistrate, Miryalaguda, alleging that on 10-10-1956, the petitioners had belaboured one Koditekka Ramulu with sticks and had thereby caused his death, and were therefore liable for an offence under Section 304, H. P. C. To prove the prosecution's case, 17 witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet of wh...
Workmen of D.B.R. Mills Ltd. Vs. D.B.R. Mills Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ507AP
Mir Siadat Ali Khan, J.1. By G.O. Ms. No. 464, dated 4 May 1957, the industrial dispute between the workmen and the employers of D.B.R. Mills, Hyderabad, has been duly referred for adjudication with the following issues:(i) Whether the demand of the workmen for the payment of bonus for the year 1955-66 is Justified If so, what should be the quantum of bonus ?(ii) Whether the demand of the workmen for increased number of dresses for watch and ward staff is justified.2. The dispute was registered as No, 1 of 1957. Parties were summoned. Sri Sudarsan and Sri Arjun Rao claimed to be the office bearers of the registered trade union, but several workmen of the D.B.R. Mills, under the leadership of M.I.K. Qureshi, claimed that they were not their true representatives. After hearing argument, I held on 30 July 1957 that under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act No. XIV of 1947 both of them can be parties to this dispute. Accordingly both filed claim statements to which the employer repli...