Andhra Pradesh Court September 1988 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.
B. Chandra Manikyamma, Vs. B. Sudarsana Rao Alias Saleem Mohammed and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1849
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. A-1 is the husband and P.W. 1 is the wife. They belong to Kamma community. P.W. 1 filed a complaint against A-1 to A-8 for offences under Section 494 and 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. A-3 and A-4 are the parents and A-5 is the brother of A-1. A-6 is the brother-in-law of A-7. A-7 and A-8 are the parents of A-2.3. The Judicial I Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, framed a charge against A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and against A-3 to A-8 for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.4. On behalf of the complainant (PW 1) seven witnesses were examined and Exs. P-1 and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined. The accused denied the allegations made against them.5. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, found the accused guilty and convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenc...
S.N.A. Nazareth Vs. the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP200
ORDER1. The petitioner Mr. N. A. Nazareth is seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh restraining it from taking any adverse step to de-bar the petitioner from practising the profession of law in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner he was enrolled as an advocate in 1953-54 on the roll of Rajasthan State Bar Council and he practised in Jaipur, Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras prior to the Advocate's Act 25 of 1961 (for short 'the Act') came into force. He practised up to 1958 throughout the Metropolitan Cities of India. He came down to Hyderabad after the demise of his father and stayed for some time in his father's house. There arose litigation in respect of his father's property. He abandoned all his law books, certificates and furniture in the house and he went to Bombay. When he came back along with his wife to stay in his house, to his surprise, he found that his step-mother was in...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Abbas Yar Jung and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR447(AP)
M.N. Rao, J.1. The question referred for the decision of this court at the instance of the Revenue is : 'Where the final valuation of the asset is known, on the date of determination of the value of the asset which, of course, has to be determined as on the date of death of the deceased and where the valuation as on the date of death is determined by applying Parks' formula or the relevant principles of valuation, as the case may be, is there any scope or warrant for introducing the theory or risk and deducting a further amount on account of such risk ?' 2. With the consent of both sides, we have reframed the question as follows : 'Where, after the final valuation of the asset is known, in the determination of the value of such asset as on the date of death of the deceased and after such valuation is determined by applying Parks' formula or the relevant principles of valuation, as the case may be, whether there is any scope or warrant for introducing the theory of risk, thereby deducti...
A.P. Dairy Development Cooperation Federation Vs. K. Ramulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ312AP
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This judgment is practically supplementary to the judgment delivered by us on 23rd August 1988 in the connected W.A.No. 1314/88 preferred by the writ petitioners against the same judgment to the extent they were aggrieved by the same order of the learned single Judge. We rejected that appeal on the ground that the relief for absorption and regularisation of the writ petitioners in the appellant-Federation was premature. We there referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India. 1987-1-LLJ-3452. The present appeal is by the Federation, which was the 1st respondent in the writ petition.3. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 26 for a direction to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to initiate action under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and for taking necessary steps for prohibitation of employment of contract labour in the appellant Federation and also for issue of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›