Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Lingareddi Sreenivasulu Reddi (Died) and ors. Vs. D. Muniratnam Reddi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP173
1. First defendant filed O. S. 199 of 1960 against the second defendant for recovering a sum of Rupees 1,200/- with interest due on a promissory note executed on 5-7-1957. That suit was decreed in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter he filed execution petition No. 9/64 for execution of the decree by sale of the property of the second defendant on which attachment before judgment was levied. Plaintiff filed Execution Application No. 297 of 1964 in Execution Petition 9/64 for raising the attachment. He based his claim on the ground that the property under attachment belongs to him. That claim petition was rejected by the Executing Court. He therefore filed the present suit for declaration of his tittle and pleaded that the property under attachment was settled upon him by the second defendant under Ex. A-1 dated 27-6-1958. Second defendant (judgment-debtor) is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and also his sister's son.2. Learned trial Judge held that there was no unavoidable nec...
Bharat Hybrid Seeds and Agro Enterprises and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ61
ORDERSambasiva Rao, J.1. This petition for quashing the entire proceedings in C. C. No. 17 of 1977 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kurnool, is filed Under Section 482 Cr.PC The petitioner, a firm end its Managing Partner, were charged with the offence Under Section 7 read with Section 19(a), Seeds Act. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 7th Sept. 1973. The complaint was lodged on 8th Nov. 1976. The punishment that can be imposed for the alleged offence, even if it is proved and a conviction is based thereon, is only a fine; and, therefore, as prescribed by Section 468 (2) (a), the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such an offence is only six months. In this case, there is no doubt that the case has been filed long after the expiry of the period of six months which is the period of limitation. However, the Court took cognisance of the case. The present petitioners, when they appeared as accused, filed Crl. M. P. No. 66 of 1977 for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›