Andhra Pradesh Court June 1982 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.
Palichetty Latchanna Vs. Giduthuri Appa Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983AP244
ORDER1. The Revisionists herein are the tenants. The respondent-landlord filed two petitions for eviction, R. C. Nos 2 and 3 of 1976 on hte grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the schedule premises for the proposed commencement of his business. The eviction petitions have been filed under sec. 10 (3) (b) (iii) and sec 10 (2) (I) of the A.P. Buildings (lease Rent and Eviction) control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). R. C. No. 2/76 briefly states: The petitioner (landlord) purchased the building Doors Nos. 2/48, 2/49, and 2/50 on the western side of the G.N. T. Road in Tagarapuvalasa under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1969. Actual possession wasa given in so far as D. No. 2/50 is converned and symbolic possession in respect of D. Nos. 2/48 and 2/49 which were occupied by the two revisionists herein was given after the purchase the tenants assured to pay the rents to the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the building for the purposes of his business a...
Gulam IntiozuddIn and ors. Vs. Secretary to Government of Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1982AP397
ORDER1. The petitioner own patta lands in Manchala n Batasingaram villages, previously in Hyderabad district, now in Rangareddy district. There are neem, babul, mango, durisanam and tamarind trees in those lands. They have to obtain the permission of the Forest authorities to fell the tamarind and durisanam trees or sell or transport the wood or other products of those trees under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, and Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. They complain that the restrictions imposed by the rules have become very irksome and they are not able to dispose of the timber or the produce of those trees standing in their lands. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition to quash G. O. Ms. No. 697 Forest and Rural Development dated 31st March, 1976 and G. O. Ms. No. 165 Forest and Rural Development dated 23rd February, 1979.2. Firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 is not applicable to priva...
innovation, Secunderabad and anr. Vs. Central Board of Excise and Cust ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1982
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT91(AP)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, subsequently confirming the adjudication order passed by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The Collector by his order dated 25-5-1977 confiscated the goods seized from the petitioners under Section 111(d) and Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 112 of the Act. On appeal the Board confirmed the order of the Collector, except in the matter of penalty. It reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. 2. In the writ petition Sri. V. R. Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, raised four contentions viz. (i) that the search which led to the seizure and ultimately to the adjudication and confiscation was conducted by a person not competent in law to do so and, therefore, all subsequent steps, viz., the seizure, adjudication and confiscation are void; (ii) that the person conducting the search had not formed a reasonable bel...
Lalmohan Srivastava Vs. Ravi Co-operative Housing Society Limited at B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982AP295
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is sought to be preferred against an interlocutory order in a revision petition filed under S. 115, C.P.C Clause 15 of the Letter Patent clearly prohibits a Letters Patent jurisdiction Appeal being preferred against an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. IT follows that, when a Letter Patent Appeal is not maintainable against any order in the revision petition itself, no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against any interlocutory order in a revision petition. AN interlocutory order made in a revision petition may with in the meaning of Clause 15; but, inasmuch as the said order is made in exercise of the revision al jurisdiction, no Letters Patent Appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. Sri B.G. Paropkari, the learned counsel for the appellant, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786; but we do not find anything in that decision in sup...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›