Andhra Pradesh Court September 1981 Judgments
Aga Construction Vs. Cheif Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderbad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP70
ORDER1. The pre-qualification prescribed for tenders for contract works for over fifty lakhs of Hyderabad municipal corporation are questioned in this writ petitions. Contract works of the municipal corporation were giving under Ss.124 to 129 of the Hyderabad municipal corporation Act , 1955 (herein after called the municipal corporation act) and the municipal corporation of Hyderabad tender rules ,1970 .From the affidavit of the special officer, municipal corporation of Hyderabad field in this writ petitions , it appears that the past experience of the corporation has shown that whenever tender were called for , contractors of the different status were participating quoting tender and in certain cases contract with out having sufficient experience to tackle the jobs of required magnitude procedure the work and subsequently it was found by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad that their experience was much below the expected standard and they spoil the important prestigious project ....
Tag this Judgment!Kandimalla Koteswara Rao and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ209
ORDER1. The petitioners are concerned in Crime No. 168/81 relating to P.S., Addanki. It appears that the case was registered against the petitioners for an offence under Section 430, I.P.C. on the report given to the police against the petitioners that the petitioners interfered with the flow of water in an irrigation channel and committed mischief sometime on or about 1-9-1981. The said offence is a cognizable offence. But it is also a bailable offence. The petitioners appeared before the Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, and requested the Magistrate to take them into custody. They have simultaneously applied by a separate petition for grant of bail. The Magistrate after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor rejected Crl.M.P. 654/81 by stating that the petitioners are not under any restraint and so refused to accept their surrender or grant bail. He observed however that if the petitioners so feel they can obtain anticipatory bail, from the Sessions Judge. The petitioners could not have m...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sainath Reddy and ors. Vs. G. Narayana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP247
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is preferred against the judgment of Justice S. H. Sheth dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and confirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the Execution Petition filed by the appellants. 2. The relevant facts are as follows:- The respondent executed a promissory note in favour of one P. Ramachandra Reddy , the father of the appellants 1 and 2, and the husband of the appellants 3 and 4. On the foot of the said note, the appellants obtained a decree in O.S. No. 89/58 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained a money decree of Rs. 12,000/- and odd against the respondent on 10-9-1959. The appellants/decree -holders filed an execution petition E.P. No. 35/71 on 5-8-1971 for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the judgment- debtor's properties. On the same date, notice was ordered in the said execution petition to the judgment- debtor under O.21 , R.22, C.P.C. returnab...
Tag this Judgment!Gadamsetti Amruthavalli Tayaru and ors. Vs. Chandrapati Kondaraju and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP80
Amareswaro, J. 1. The short and simple question that arises for our consideration is whether the proceedings under S. 144 of the Civil P.C. can be stayed by the court in exercise of the power under O. 41, R. 5 of C.P.C. The matter is before us on a reference by the learned single judge before whom it was contended that the court had no such power. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated :-Basing on sale certificate obtained after purchasing the property in execution of a decree, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 655 of 1970 I the court of the District Munisfff, Ongole for possession. The suit was decreed. The petitioner took possession of the lands in execution of the decree. On appeal by the respondents, the decree was reversed on the sole ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The respondents moved the lower court for restitution and the application is pending.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate court dismissing the suit, the petitioners filed a second appeal which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Mehta Vs. Suraj Mehta
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP100
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of an order made under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') awarding interim maintenance to the wife and the child of the respondent in O. P. L No. 102 of 1981 on the file of the II additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner herein is the wife and she filed an application under s. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion. On the date of the petition, she had a child aged about two-and-half years. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. The husband claims that it was the wife that was guilty of desertion and, therefore, not entitled to the relief. Pending that petition, the wife claimed a sum of Rs. 600/- for herself and Rs. 200/- for the minor child towards maintenance, and Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses. In support of her petition, she stated that while she was at Rajkot with her parents, she was somehow maintained ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver, Krishna Vs. Uppalapati Babu Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP260
ORDER1. These two revision petitions could be disposed of by a common order as they arise out of common judgment. 2. The sole but important question which arises in these revisions is, what are the rights of an Official Receiver vis-a-vis the son's share in the joint family property in order to discharge the untainted debts of an insolvent -father even though such share in the property stands attached inexecution of a decree obtained against the father and son. 3. C.R. P. No. 5524 of 1980 arises out of an order passed in E.P. No. 158 of 1971 in O.S. No. 5 of 1971 and a letter of the Official Receiver in E.P. No. 362 of 1970 in O.S. No. 117 of 1970; and C.R.P. No. 5525 of 1980 arises out of an order passed in E.P. No. 270/75 in O.S No. 117 of 1970. 4. The circumstances that led to the filing of these revisions may be set out. One S. Basavapunnaiah filed I.P. No. 29 of 1969 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayavada on 1-11-1969 on the ground that he was unable to discharge his debts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Director of Inspection, Customs and Centra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT457(AP); [1982]136ITR120(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. This case is no exception to the observation of Lord Summer - 'The way of taxpayers is hard and the Legislature does not go out of its way to make it any easier'. 2. The Sirpur Paper Mills, a public limited company, brought this appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Raghuvir J., in W.P. No. 7092 of 1974 filed by it for the issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus. 3. The statement of case, in brief, as per the averments of the writ petitioner i : The Finance Act, 1965, provided for the grant of tax credit certificates by inserting Chapter XXII-B in the I.T. Act, 1961, through s. 280ZD. Section 280ZD provides, inter alia, for the grant of tax credit certificates in relation to increased production of goods at a rate not exceeding 25% of the excise duty payable on that quantum of goods cleared during the base year, which is the official year 1964-65, in respect of existing undertakings, and, as respects other undertakings, the first year in which the...
Tag this Judgment!Dasam China Pappayya Raju Vs. Sripada Ramachandra Prabhakara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP39
Alladi Kuppuswami, C.J.1. S. 3 (t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, referred to in this Judgment as the Act, is in the following terms :-' ' Small farmers' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds and personally cultivates, or who cultivates as a tenant or share-cropper or mortgagee with possession, agricultural land which does not exceed in extent - (i) in the case of persons other than the members of the Scheduled Tribes one hectare, if it is wet or two hectares, if it is dry;(ii) In the case of the members of the Scheduled Tribes, two hectares, if it is wet, or four hectares, if it is dry but does not include any person whose annual household income, other than from agriculture exceeds one thousand and two hundred rupees in any two years within three years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act. Explanation : For the purposes of computing the extent of land under this clause, on...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gnaneshwar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP252
ORDER1. The State has referred this revision against the order dated 26-10-1978 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nizamabad, excluding pote kharab lands from the holding of the respondent declarant.2. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader, it is necessary to state certain facts. The respondent filed his declaration and eventually after enquiry he was found to be holding land in excess of the standard holding. Thereafter, proceedings under S. 10, Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were initiated and the respondent was called upon to surrender the land. The respondent declarant filed a petition before the Primary Tribunal in proceedings under S. 10 of the Act, to exclude pote kharab extent from the holding of the respondent. That petition was dismissed. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeal and excluded the pote kharab lands from the holding of th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gangulappa Naidu and ors. Vs. K. Gangi Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP284
ORDER1. This is a revision field against the order in C. M. P. 37 of 1981 granting interim injunction pending disposal of A. S. No. 22 of 1981 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Chittoor, 2. At the very outset a question arose, whether it is an appeal under O.43 or a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. that lies against an order granting interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C.3. Sri E. Subrahamanyam, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that no appeal lies against the instant order ant in this connection he mainly relied on the following authorities:(i) Chellappan v. K.P. Varughese : AIR1964Ker23 (ii) O.C. Kalahasti v. P.C. M. Chetti : AIR1975Mad3 (iii) Domlu Guno v. Yeshadabai (AIR 1978 Goa 31). 4. Sri V. Raghunath Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that an appeal is maintainable and sought permission of the Court to convert this into an appeal. He submitted that S. 104, C. P. C. makes it clear that it is only an app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »