Andhra Pradesh Court April 1978 Judgments
S.P. Goenka Vs. the District Collector Giddapah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP22
ORDER1. The petitioner filed an application for the grant of a mining lease in barytes on 29-8-1973 before the District Collector, Cuddapah in respect of an area of 200 acres in Mangampet village, Rajampet. Taluq. Cuddapah District. The said application was received by the District Collector on 5th September,1913. The application was accompanied by the necessary documents as required under the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, herein after referred to as 'the Rules' in pursuance of his application, the petitioner was called upon Iocate the area in respect of which the licence we, applied and survey Operations were also conducted by the revenue authorities However. the application of the petitioner was not disposed of within 12 months of its receipt as required under Rule 24 of the Rules, Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 if any application is not disposed of within 12 months it shall be deemed to have been refused. So the petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government u...
Tag this Judgment!Azam Khao Vs. S. Sattar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978AP442
ORDER1. Plaintiff is the petitioner, He filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1000/- on the foot of two promissory notes, Exs. A-2 and A-2. Ex. A-1 is dated 2-8-1974 and is in a sum of Rs. 400. Ex. A-2 is dated 3-2-1975 and is in a sum of Rs. 600. The defendant contended that he did not received the amounts mentioned in the promissory notes but that he received only an amount of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/-, respectively under the said pronotes. He also stated that every month, the plaintiff, who is a pathan, has been collecting amount towards interest on full amount. He therefore denied his liability for an further payment.2. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, held (1) that the defendant has failed to establish that the did not receive the full amount mentioned in the promissory notes; and (2) that the suit is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is a money-lender but has not complied with the provisions of the Hyderabd M...
Tag this Judgment!Voluntary Liquidator, Linsen Finance and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Akn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1978
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas503(AP)
Madhava Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Section 518(1)(b) read with Section 470 and under Section 519 read with Sections 477 and 478 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, by the voluntary liquidator, Linsen Finance & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as 'the voluntary liquidator', to direct the respondents to pay the amount found to be due by them to the company in liquidation together with interest at 12% per annum from July I, 1974 (the date of commencement of winding up of the company till the date of payment). This petition was filed on November 16, 1976.2. The Linsen Finance & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', was a private limited company carrying on chit fund business and having its registered office at Hyderabad with branches at various places in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh,The board of directors of the said company at its meeting held ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Abdul Qadeer Vs. Raffat Banu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1978AP417
1. The Second Appeal raises an interesting question relating to interpretation of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). there has been a divergence of opinion among the several High Courts in India on this question and, it appears, there is no decision of either the Madras High Court on this question.2. The parties to this appeal were married in November 1958. They have two daughters also who are now said to be aged about 17 years and 16 years respectively. After the marriage, the husband (appellant herein) was living in the house of his wife's parents. He left that house in July, 1971 on account of certain difference. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 488, Cr. p. C. for maintenance for herself and her two daughters, which was allowed to the extent of daughters only. She then instituted the present proceedings for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the husband has failed to provi...
Tag this Judgment!Keesara Yogananda Sarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT612(AP)
ORDERJeevan Reddy J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit is for a declaration that the levy of excise duty in a sum ofRs. 15,543/- is illegal, and void and for a consequential injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting the paid amount.2. The plaintiff is a producer of tobacco which is one of excisable goods under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The said tobacco was stored in a non-duty paid warehouse. He sold the tobacco to one Messrs. Polisetti Venkateswarju and Company of Guntur. The plaintiff applied for transport permits to the officer-in-charge of his warehouse. After obtaining a bond from him, permits were issued. The goods were then transported to Guntur. Part of the goods were accounted for i.e. rewarehoused at Guntur, but a major portion thereof was not so accounted for and not rewarehoused. It appears that the said purchaser sold the said tobacco to a third party without warehousing the same at Guntur. Proceedings in that behalf were taken first against th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bhanumathi and anr. Vs. Smt. Premalatha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ257
ORDERMuktadar, J.1. It is now well settled by series of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the High Court would invoke the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) corresponding to Section 561A of the old Code if the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case or if some formality as by way of sanction which ought to have been obtained, has not been obtained or the facts mentioned in the complaint if taken to be correct on their face value, do not make out a prima facie case, then only the High Court would take cognizance of the offence and quash the proceedings. In the instant case the case of the petitioners is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence because according to the complainant herself, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 11-11-1973 and the complaint was filed in February 1978 and, therefore, this complaint was beyond the period of one year as envisaged under Section 469 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Johny Saheb and ors. Vs. Ademma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978AP447
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor condoning the delay in filing a claim petition. The claim petition was filed under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. At the relevant time the period was only sixty days. Proviso to sub-sec. (3) however empowers the Claims Tribunal to entertain an application after the prescribed period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. It is in exercise of this power that the Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay of about 5 years and has entertained the claim petition.2. This appeal purports to have been filed under S. 110-B, sub-sec. (1). According to the said provision, any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal, may within ...
Tag this Judgment!Chekka Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. Appana Veerraju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1980AP32
Raghuvir, J.1. This L. P. A. arises out if a purchaser's suit for specific performance of agreement of sale (Ex. A-2) dated 1-2-1961 by which the defendant's father Sriramulu, who died on 3-4-1961, having received Rs. 200/- agreed to sell the house No. 3/10 0f Thallarevu village in East Godavari district, and received Rs. 100/- on 15-3.1961 out of the total consideration of Rs. 400/-. In Ex. A-2 the parties fixed the dated for performance fixed the date for performance as on 1-6-1961 or earlier. The suit, however, was field on 12-11-1968.2. The suit house was the subject- matter of dispute in O. S. No. 30/60 on the file of the District Munsif's court at Kakinada, in which Maneoalli, Veerraju claimed possession. Sriramulu, the defendant in the suit, was defending his tittle to the house. The suit was dismissed on 20-1-1961, twelve days earlier to the execution of the agreement of sale, Ex. A-2. The suit ultimately dismissed the suit. The plaintiff at first, on 18-5-1961 issued notice an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›