Andhra Pradesh Court February 1977 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.
Hari Waman Rao and ors. Vs. Pappula Narsimulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977AP371
ORDER1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 23-12-1975 of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad, refusing to receive a document in evidence filed by the plaintiffs during the course of examination of a witness. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed the suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. It is alleged that late Venkata Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the defendant in the month of February, 1957 and that the suit property was put in the defendants possession by way of usufructuary mortgage for 14 years with a stipulation for appropriating the usufruct towards the debt borrowed by late Venkata Rao. A mortgage bond was also executed to that effect. The period of 14 years expired in the month of January, 1971. Since then the defendant is in wrongful possession and did not deliver possession to the plaintiffs in spite of oral demands and a lawyer's Notice, D/- 10-1-1972. The defendant in his written statement denied the debt alleged to have been...
Nadeem Mian and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1329
ORDERGangadhara Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 56/1976.2. On the intervening night of 9th and 10th January, 1974, two Lorries carrying bags of rice into Karnataka State from the State of Andhra Pradesh were intercepted by the Vigilance Cell Officers at Chincholi Road within the belt area. Cases were registered for contravention of Clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation Export of Rice) Order 1964. The Officer seized the rice and submitted a report to the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad issued a show cause notice to the driver of the Lorry, Nadimmiyan, the 1st Petitioner herein and others. The 1st petitioner filed affidavits of petitioners 2 to 6 herein before the District Revenue Officer. In those affidavits, petitioners 2 to 6 stated that the rice belonged to t...
A.P. State Electricity Board Vs. E.S.i.C.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ44AP
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the Meter Relay Transformer Establishment of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board at Guduru is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1975, referred to in this judgment as 'the Act' and whether the employees' contribution and employers' special contribution can be levied against them by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.2. The facts found by the Employees' Insurance Court in cases Nos. 4 and 5 of 1975, out of which these appeals arise, which are binding on this Court in the appeals before us are as follows:There are twenty persons working in the establishment including one junior engineer. If the junior engineer is also taken into consideration, the establishment would be a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. But if he is excluded, the establishment would not be a factory. It is admitted that the salar...
M. Thimma Raju and anr. Vs. Dronamraju Venkatakrishna Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP385
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. These appeals are filed by the plaintiffs against the common judgement of Venkatarama Sastry, J., in Appeals Nos. 209/1970, 431/1971, 3/1972 and Transferred Appeal No. 208/1974, and they are disposed of by us by a common judgement.2. The plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 28/1950 in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Eluru, for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into two shares and for allotment of one share to them, and for mesne profits. Originally, they filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the lands situate in Chilakapadu and D. Muppavaram villages were in possession of the tenant and they were claiming occupancy rights. Thereupon, the plaintiffs impleaded the tenants as defendants 3 to 19 in the suit. During the pendency of the suit the 1st defendant sold the suit properties to the defendants 3 to 52. Consequently the plaintiffs amended the plaint stating that the sales in their favour were su...
Nandipati Rami Reddi and ors. Vs. Nandipati Padma Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP30
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. The question which arises in both these appeals is when a suit has been dismissed for a default and has been subsequently restored, whether the interlocutory orders passed by the Court in the suit before the dismissal for default would be considered to be in operation during the period between the dismissal and restoration. Does the restoration of the suit revive the operation of those orders during the period between the dismissal and the restoration ?2. Since the two appeals relate to the same dispute and arise out of the same order, we will dispose them of under a common judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the 2nd defendant while the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the 1st defendant. Indeed, the Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was filed by the 2nd defendant. Since the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant was not heard along with that Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it is brought u...
R.B. Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad Vs. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP422
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. 1. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a Partnership Firm carrying on the business of mining , manganese ore. The petitioner obtained a mining lease from the Government on 26-10-1953 for a period of twenty years in regard to certain lands in certain villages in Cheepurupalli and Palakonda taluks in Srikakulam District. The lease was to expire on 25-10-73 Under R. 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules made under the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act 1957 (referred to in this judgement as the 'Rules' and the Act respectively) the petitioner had to apply for the renewal of the mining lease at lease 12 months before the date of expiry of the lease. Accordingly on 24-10-1972 ten applications for renewal were made in regard to different areas comprised under the original lease. Under R. 22 of the Rules an application for grant of renewal was to be accompanied by an income-tax clearance certificate from the Income Tax Officer concerned and a valid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›