Andhra Pradesh Court October 1967 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.
Sanjeeva Reddi (G.) Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ11AP
Vaidya, J.1. These two writ petitions raise the question as to the jurisdiction and powers of the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in cases where there is a change of office-bearers in the period intervening the submission of annual audit statement of account.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 85 of 1967 are that the petitioner therein claims to be the president of the Sirsilk Employees' Union, Sirpur, which is a registered trade union bearing register No. 67. It is stated that in the election held on 29 January 1966, the petitioner was elected as the president and the election of the office-bearers was communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions under the provisions of the Act along with the annual auditor's statement of account as provided for in Section 28, Sub-section (2) of the Act.3. The union had placed before the management the demands with regard to the weaving department and a letter was addressed by the general secretary of th...
Dasa K. Lakshmiah Vs. Union Government and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP386a
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 770 principal and interest. The defendant is the Railway Administration which is represented by the General Manager. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the person who agreed to sell certain woollen goods to the plaintiff. The consignment of goods was sent by the 2nd defendant to Hindupur, the plaintiff's place. The order was booked on 24-7-1957 and the goods were handed over to the railway to be despatched to the destination on 13-9-1957. The goods, however, were not delivered to the plaintiff as they were lost. The plaintiff thereupon issued a notice to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and sent copies thereof to the General Managers, Central Railway, Bombay, General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the General Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi. The plaintiff did not receive any of the goods or their value from the defendants. He, therefore, filed the s...
K. Vishwanatham Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP109
P. Jagan Mohan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is an Adi Andhra belonging to a scheduled caste. He is in the service of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, having entered it as a Lower Division clerk in the Revenue Department of East Godavari District on 15-4-1940. He was subsequently promoted as an Upper Division Clerk in 1950 and thereafter transferred to the Development Department in the Secretariat Service in a similar post in 1954. On 31-12-1955. he was promoted as a Section Officer. It is the petitioner's case that the Government of Andhra Pradesh. in preparing panel of names from among the Section Officers of the Secretariat for appointment to the Posts of Assistant Secretaries for the year 1964-65 in the year 1964. did not include the petitioner's name, though he is the senior most among the Scheduled Caste employees eligible for appointment to the 9th 16th and 22nd vacancies in a cycle of 25 vacancies of the posts of Assistant Secretaries, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Special R...
Danda Chenchaiah Vs. Danda Mangamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ684
ORDERChinnappa Reddy, J.1. This is a petition to revise the-order of the learned Judicial First Class-Magistrate, Darsi, under Section 488, Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The main argument of Sri Venkatarama Sastry, the-learned Advocate for the petitioner-respondent, is that his petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, and that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the award of maintenance during the pendency of those proceedings and hence the application under Section 488, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, at any rate until the disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. I am unable to agree with this contention.2. The object of Section 488, Cr.P.C. is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. This remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under their perso...
Mall Suranna Vs. Kalla Somulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP368
1. The defendant is the appellant before me. The respondents filed the suit for a declaration that the irrigation `bode' marked in the plaint plan A, B, C, D is used by the plaintiffs for irrigating their land, and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said `bode'. It was alleged inter alia, that the land of the plaintiffs R. S. No. 346 marked as `P' in the plaint plan and the defendant's land R. S. No. 345/1, marked as `Q' in the plaint plan, originally belonged to one family. On partition, plot `P' fell to the share of the vendors of the plaintiffs and the plot `Q' fell to the share of the defendant's predecessors-in-title. At the time of partition, for the purpose of irrigating plot `P' the bode described as A, B, C, D was an easement of necessity. The plot `P' was purchased under the sale-deed Ex. A-1 dated 31-5-39 by the plaintiffs. The existence of the bode is mentioned in the said sale-deed. The vendors of the sale-deed had a...
Bathula Krishna Brahmam Vs. Gudipudi Shaik Meera Hassain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP309
1. The Petitioner seeks to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Narasaraopet in A. S No. 87 of 1964, confirming the Order of the District Munsif, Sattenapalli in E. A. No 281 of 1963 in O. S. No. 130 of 1962 that the application filed by the Petitioner (Judgment-Debtor) under Order XXI. Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor) made an application for setting aside the sale in time by depositing a total amount of Rs. 1,023-88 P. which was more than the amount required for depositing under Or. XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the Order of the Subordinate Judge is liable to be set aside.3. The Petitioner made an application for issue of a challan to deposit the amount and the Court accordingly issued a challan but while apportioning the amount, a sum oi Rs, 849-73 P. was, apportioned to the sale warrant amount and Rs. 2-90 P. as subseque...
K. Dasaradharami Reddy Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP39
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government not to give effect to the G. O. Ms. No. 1042 dated 23-9-1966 recognising the transfer of the mining lease and to direct the transfer of the lease in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated briefly. The 4th respondent in this petition, Sri T. Chenchaiah Naidu, was granted a mining lease for excavating mica in an extent of about 83-69 acres in S. No. 227 etc., of Turimula Village Rapur Taluk Nellore District for a period of 20 years by the State Government by an order dated 12-1-1962. On 16-4-1963, Chenchaiah Naidu entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sub-leasing the lease for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs. 5,000/-. It is alleged in the present petition that the 4th respondent, Chenchaiah Naidu, was trying to resile from his agreement with the petitioner and took some...
T. Tharamma Vs. T. Ramchandra Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP333
ORDER1. This revision arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal, in I. A. 305 of 1966 in O. S. 66 of 1965, directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay court-fee on the two reliefs claimed one for cancellation of the decree in O. S. 52/56 and the other, for possession of the property, which formed the subject-matter of the compromise decree.2. Mr. Madhava Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the relief of possession is only ancillary and that in the event of the compromise decree being cancelled or set aside the petitioner would automatically get possession of the property and therefore court-fee is not payable separately for the relief of possession.3. Indisputably, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the compromise decree and if that is cancelled, it would restore his possession of the property. Therefore the relief of possession asked for is only ancillary or consequential. Madhavan Nair, J., in Thangachi Ammal v. Moideen Marica...
Purapabutchi Rama Rao Vs. Purapa Vimalakumari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP216
1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, dated October 1, 1964, in A. S. No 47 of 1961, ordering the remand of the suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, for fresh disposal according to law, in the light of the observations contained therein.2. It is necessary to narrate the brief and material facts that led to this appeal. The appellant, who owns 4.02 acres of land and a house, married the defendant, in the year 1957, when he was studying B. A class at Gudivada. He was forced and threatened by his father-in-law, in March 1958, when he was unwell and was studying for his ensuing April examination, either to consummate the marriage or to agree to divorce his wife. On March 3, 1958, Venkataramiah and the defendant father came to him and took him to the office of an Advocate Sri D. S. N. Acharyulu of Masulipatnam and got a registered notice prepared with false recitals to ...
Borige Sambhamurthy and anr. Vs. Drugs Inspector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ538
ORDERMohammed Mirza, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, converting CC 70 of 1966 into a P.R.C.2. The petitioner is charged of an of fence under Section 27 read with Sections 17A, 18A(1) and (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. Section 27 of this Act prescribes the punishment which may extend to ten years. The second schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that if the offence is against any other law and if it is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, only the Court of Session would try such offences. It is, in view of this provision of law, that the learned trial Magistrate has directed the conversion of the CC into a P.R.C.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that in view of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, no Court inferior to that of the Magistrate of First Class shall try an offence under this Act, and Section 36 of the same Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »