Andhra Pradesh Court January 1972 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.
Kahatu Bai and anr. Vs. Khatija Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP35
1. The Judgment Debtors in O. S. 1 of 1961 on the file of District Court, Nalgonda are the appellants here.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated: The respondents 1 to 3 herein obtained a preliminary decree in O. S. 1 of 1961 on the file of the district Court, Nalgonda for partition of certain immovable properties. An appeal was preferred to the High court against the said decree in A. S. 72 of 1962 and the appeal was dismissed, and the preliminary decree, confirmed. The respondents then filed an application in the district Court, Nalgonda, for execution of the decree to the extent of costs awarded by the High court in appeal. It appears that the costs awarded by the trial court were already deposited by the judgment debtors and withdrawn by the decree-holders respondents.3. The District Court, Nalgonda transferred the execution petition to the district Court, Mahaboobnagar, which in its turn transferred the same to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar. ...
Raghavendrarao (A1) and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ789
ORDERMuktadar, J.1. The Fourth City Magistrate, Hyderabad framed charges against the accused under Sections 120-B, 420 and 341. I.P.C. A-2, A-3. and A-7 to A-10 have preferred this revision against the said order dated 14.4.1971. Mr. K. Rama Sarma. the learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate was incorrect in framing the said charges as the documents referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. do not disclose any valid ground for the framing of the charges. He further contends that there are contradictions in the first information and the statement of P-W. 1 (complainant) under Section 162, Cr.P.C. as such, no offence has been made out warranting the framing of the charges. I cannot accede to the contentions of the learned advocate. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab : 1960CriLJ1239 . the Supreme Court has laid down some of the categories of cases where the High Court In exercise of its inherent jurisdiction could interfere and quash the proceedings. These are...
Yarlagadda Veeraiah Vs. Kawali Mining Corporation and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP170
ORDER1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against common order by the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, in Interlocutory Applications Nos. 26 and 29 of 1970 in O. S. Nos. 5 and 10 of 1970. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions give rise to common question of law, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The material facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision Petitions may briefly stated. Defendant No. 12 as the Managing Partner of the Defendant No. 1, executed two promissory notes one in favour of Yarlagadda Baliah and the other in favour of Indlamudi Veeriah, Four one anna denomination stamps were affixed on each of those promissory notes instead of 0.25 paise stamps as required by law. Since the promissors did not pay the moneys due by them, the promisee Yarlagadda Baliah and Indlamudi Veeriah, filed suits for the recovery of moneys due to them under those promissory notes. Those original suits were re-numbered as O. S. No. 5 of 1970 and No. 10 of 1970 on the file...
Gyanoba Yaswant Jadav Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1974AP76
Parthasarathi, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three writ petitions which were heard at the same time although separate judgments have been pronounced therein. They arise out of the same transaction. Some of the questions raised and argued in those appeals are common.2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 321 of 1968 impugn the validity of the order of the Collector of Customs whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been levied. The application made by the petitioner under Article 226 was rejected by our learned brother Ekbote, J. who dismissed the other writ petitions also. Hence the appeals.3. On 7-9-1963 the movements of two persons, who on detraining at Sanathnagar Station, were found to be going along the Railway Track towards the signal post, excited the suspicion of the Customs authorities who appeared to have been previously alerted about their arrival. They were detained and interrogated and a search followed. One of the two persons called Sare Veerayya, was found to be carry...
B. Peda Baliah Vs. Rajeshwar Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1345
ORDERMuktadar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this revision, petition is whether the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Medak in Crl. Revision Petition No. 50 of 1966 should be accented or not. The facts are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 379. I. PC. against the accused who are the Executive Officer and the Bill Collector of the Ga.iwel gram pancha-yat to the effect that on 26-3-1966 the accused have committed a theft of a gold chain weighing about 6 tolas and cash Rs. 498-50 from the house of the complainant, After the filing of the complaint, an objection was raised by the accused that under Section 143 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act; permission has not been obtained by the complainant to prosecute the accused persons. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant ought to have obtained the permission before prosecuting the accused persons. A revision petition was preferred by the complainant. T...
Panchayat Samithi Vs. Srimathi Kethavarapu Kannamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP72
ORDER1. only question involved in this revision petition is whether the document in question is a lease within the meaning of Section 2, clause (16) of the Indian Stamp Act. What happened in the case was that in an action, the respondent took the contract for collection of toll from the Panchayat Samithi for a period of six months commencing from 1.10.1967 and ending with 31.3.1968. He executed, in pursuance of the said auction, a document on 9.10.1967 thereby agreeing to abide by certain terms including the payment of the amount. As the defendant was in arrears, the Panchayat Samithi instituted a suit for recovery of the arrears due from the defendant. An objection is now taken that the document which the defendant executed in favour of the Panchayat Samithi is a lease within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (16) of the Act and that therefore it requires stamp duty under Schedule I, Article 35 (c), on the basis that it is a bond. The trial court accepted the objection raised by the of...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›