Andhra Pradesh Court October 1981 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.
Narthar Raj and ors. Vs. Tirupathi Bibi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP115
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 31st march, 1981 decreeing I. A. No. 97 of 1971 in O. S. No. 32 of 1959 in part. The effect of it is to put back the petitioners in I. A. in possession of a part of item I of plaint schedule property in the above O. S. 32/59.2. Late Sri Narahari Prasad, who died in 1299 Hijri had left behind Sri Raja Girdhari Prasad alias Bansi Raja and Sri Khubchand. Sri Raja Girdhari Prasad also called Banji Raja in his turn left behind Sri Keshan Prasad through his first wife and Smt. Silo Bibi his second wife. Sri Khubchand left behind Sri Ganesh Prasad, Sri Parameshwari Prasad. O. S. No. 32 of 1959 was a scheme suit filed by certain Archaka claiming the plaint schedule properties as having been endowed to and therefore belonging to Sri Chenna Keshavaswamy Devasthanam at Keshaogiri alias Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad City. To that suit Sri Raja Narsing Raj Behadur was ...
Nand Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1439
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition and writ petitions Nos. 6482/1981 and 6741/1981 were heard together. Common question of law raised in all the three writ petition are decided in this petition. Since facts are separate, separate orders are pronounced in the other two writ petitions. 2. This writ of habeas corpus is filed by Nanda Kishore questioning the detention of Sri Arjun Singh under Section 3(2) of the national Security Act, 1980 by the commissioner of Police Hyderabad, by his order dt. 15th May, 1981. 3. The grounds of detention mentioned are : 'On 27-7-80 at 3.00 p.m. you along with Bhagwan Singh, Pratap Singh and Prakash went to Maharaja Bar & Restaurant, Basheerbagh. After consuming beer in the said Bar Sri Bhagwan Singh questioned Sri Sunil Roberts who plays according in the Band, as to why he failed to play the tune requested by him two or three days ago. So saying Sri Bhagawan singh caught hold of Sri Sunil Roberts to beat him. Due to intervention of beat artists the ...
M.S. Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ40AP
1. This writ appeal, which was directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, P. A. Chaudary, J., in Writ Petition No. 5055 of 1978, reported in (1979) 2 Andh. W.R. 439 was heard by a Division Bench consisting of V. Madhava Rao and K. Amreswari, JJ. But there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges. The papers were, therefore, placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders under clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Hon'ble Chief Justice referred the matter to me. Thus this appeal came up before me for hearing. 2. The appellant and the third respondent were recruited at one and the same time directly from the Bar as District & Sessions Judges, Grade-II, in the Year 1968 and both were confirmed as such. In the seniority list the appellant's place was fixed above the third respondent. Respondents 4 to 6, who were Sub-Judges, were promoted as District & Sessions Judges, Grade-II on 29-6-1969, 10-12-1969 and 6-7-1970, respectively. Thus respond...
Bulusu Sree Ramamurthy Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ58AP
1. The petitioner was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. While working at Srikakulam, his services were terminated by an order dated 3-5-80 with effect from 4th May, 1980 A.N. This order was received by the petitioner on 6th May, 1980. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of that order of the Food Corporation of India dated 3-5-1980. 2. The petitioner had first joined the Food Corporation of India in Sept. dated 1975 and worked with intermittent breaks upto the year 1979. By an order of the Food Corporation of India dated 27-3-79 he was appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 5-5-78 in the pay scale or Rs. 290-440. Later on, by an order dated 2-4-80 the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis with retrospective effect from 5-5-78. The post to which was appointed requires one year probationary service. The order of appointment says that he should be deemed to have been placed on probation with effect from 5-5-78. The one-year probation woul...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. K. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ641
ORDER1. The Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in disposing of Crl.A. No. 49/1979 filed before him under S. 49 of the A.P. Forest Act, has set aside the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 16-7-1979 confiscating the lorry APL 419 belonging to the respondent and directed fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to the respondent to compound the offence and pay compensation therefore and the Divisional Forest Officer was also directed to act in comliance of Rule 4 of the Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules 1969. The Sessions Judge also observed that as the matter is remanded and in view of the fact that a representation was made before him on behalf of the respondent that no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witnesses through his counsel, he considered it fit and desirable to permit the respondent's counsel to cross-examine the witnesses if necessary. 2. The Public Prosecutor, in support of the revision has made two main submissions. His first submission i...
Chikkala Samuel Vs. District Educational Officer, Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP64
ORDER1. The first and important question that arises in these writ petitions is, whether the petitioner-institution is a 'minority institution' within the meaning of Art. 30 of the constitution of India. While the petitioner asserts that it is a minority institution, the respondents deny the same and assert that in the petitioner-institution only secular education is imparted as per the syllabus prescribed by the Education Department and that the management is trying to hide its misdeeds, taking shelter under the plea that it is a minority institution. It is averred by the respondents that the petitioner-institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid and that, the correspondent of the institution has also given a declaration that the management will follow strictly the conditions of recognition laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Education Rules. It is further submitted that at no point of time earlier, did the correspondent or any other representative of the petitioner-institution ever assert ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›