Andhra Pradesh Court April 1974 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.
Kuppa Ramoki Vs. Kuppa Kameswari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP3
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred against a common judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O, P. No. 130 of 1968 and O. S. No. 250 of 1968 respectively. O. S. 250/68 was filed by the respondent in these appeals against her husband for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/-P. M. from the date of suit and for arrears at the the same rate and for Rs. 500 for separate residence. O. F. No. 130/68 was filed by the the first appellant in the transferred appeal and the sole appellant in the C. M. A. for a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent was a nullity or in the alternative for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The parties will be referred to as the husband and wife as has been done in the Court below. 3. The wife filed the suit formaintenance with the following allegations. 4. The marriage was solemnised on 1-5-1966 at Palakol West Godavari District and consummated on 8-5-1966. The wife was taken to her husband's house at Vijav...
The Official Receiver, Guntur Vs. Canara Industrial Banking Syndicate, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP178
Sriramulu, J.1. The short question that arises in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is, whether E. P. No 384 of 1963 is barred by time and inexecut-able against the mortgaged property.2. The material facts are: One K. Venkata Ratnam by depositing the title-deeds of his only house, borrowed certain amounts from the Canara Industrial & Banking Syndicate, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'.) For the recovery of the amount due under the mortgage account, the Bank filed mortgage suit O. S. No. 163 of 1952 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Guntur, against K. Venkataratnam and his son. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed on 31-1-1953 and a final decree on 26-9-1953.3. In I. P. No. 20 of 1952 filed by a creditor, K. Venkataratnam was adjudged Insolvent on 27-6-1953 and the property of the insolvent vested in the Official Receiver.4. The Bank filed E. P. No. 384 of 1963 on 26-4-1963 in execution of the final mortgage decree dated 26-9-1953.5. In I. A. No. 1009/1966 i...
Musala Annaji Rao and anr. Vs. Boggarapu Papaiah Setty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP73
Kondaiah, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arising out of O. S. No. 93 of 1969 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kurnool and directed against the order of our learned brother, Muktadar J. dismissing at S. R. stage an application for stay of execution of the decree in the suit pending an unnumbered appeal and an application for condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, gives rise to a short but important and interesting question of law, viz.,'Whether the Court is competent or has jurisdiction and power to grant stay of execution of the decree pending admission and registration of a regular appeal filed beyond the period of limitation provided therefor, or pending disposal of the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal?'2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts and circumstances that gave rise to it. The respondent herein Bog-garapu Papaiah Setty instituted a suit, O. S. No...
P. Bathinaiah Vs. P. Visweswara Pillai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP11
Sambasiva Rao, J. 1. The question which is referred to us is whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 is maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court allowing an appeal brought by the respondent against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Tiru-pathi remanding the suit brought by the appellants to the trial Court for disposal on merits.2. What happened in this case is; The plaintiff. who seeks to bring this Letters Patent Appeal, filed O. S. No. 149 of 1966 in the District Munsifs Court, Srikalahasthi for permanent injunction in respect of certain properties. That claim was founded on two grounds. First of them is that he was adopted by Jagannadhan Pillai who was the owner of half share in the schedule property and consequently he became entitled to that share on the demise of his adoptive father. The second ground is a family arrangement letter executed by his natural father, Sundaram Pillai in regard to the other half share. He, however, failed to produce b...
Harijander Singh Vs. Selection Committee, Kakatiya Medical College, Wa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP35
Ekbote, C.J.1. This case first came before our learned brother K. Ramachandra Rap J. In view of conflict in certain decisions, he referred the matter to a Bench. When it came before a Bench, it was noticed that'the case raises a very important question as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies against Kakatiya Medical College which though privately run is affiliated to the Osmania University and receives grants from the public exchequer from the State of Andhra Pradesh.'The case therefore was referred to a Full Bench by an order dated 24-1-1974 for an authoritative judgment on this 'vexed question' and that is how this case has come to us.2. Kakatiya Medical College was established in 1959 by some enthusiastic officials and non-officials. The then Chief Minister showed keen interest. A managing committee headed by the Collector. Warangal was formed. The Regional Medical Education Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, The Medical College so started is a...
The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. the Asstt. Collector Central E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP254
ORDERSambasiva Rao, J.1. The petitioner is 'The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited' a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has brought this writ petition for a Mandamus to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rajahmundry directing him to extend to the company the benefits of the Notification No. 163/65 C. E. dated 1-10-1965 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) as subsequently amended by a number of Notifications. The principal Notification and the subse-quent amending Notifications relate to the concession in excise duty given to enlarge capacities of production of pacer mills.2. A few material facts of the case are necessary. The mill originally belonged to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Its then capacity was 3,000 tons per year. The Union Government gave a licence to expand the capacity to 18,000 tons per year. The State Government acquired the entire or part of the machinery necessary for enlarging the capacity of t...
Gedda Durga Malleswara Rao Vs. Ranga Panaiah and Bros.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP13
ORDERRamachandra Rao, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1960 (Act IV of 1960). is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter called the Act), are applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising powers under the Rent. Control Act. The question arises on the following facts.2. The petitioner herein filed the application H. R. C. No. 95/1972 on the file of the House Rent Controller. Vijayawada, for eviction of the respondent from a non-residential building. The application was ordered ex parte on 19-7-1972 and possession was taken over by evicting the respondent on 9-9-1972. The respondent filed the petition. I. A. No. 4518 of 1972 under Section 5 of the Act. on 15-9-1972 for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. In the affidavit 'filed in support of the petition, it was al...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›