Andhra Pradesh Court August 1990 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.
M/S R.K. Industries Plot No. Spl 35, Industrial Estate, Kallur Vs. the ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP174
ORDERSardar Alikhan, J.1. M/s R.K. Industries Plot No. SPL 35, Industrial Estate Kallur, Kurnool District petitioner herein prays for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to restore possession of the industry which was illegally taken possession of by respondent No. 3 by declaring that the act of taking possession of the properties and their sale is illegal and void being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The circumstances under which the above writ petition has been filed are as follows:3. The petitioner-Industry was started by an educated unemployed person for the manufacture of mosaic chips and tiles as a small scale industry and established the unit in the industrial estate, Kallur, in Kurnool District. The Unit obtained financial assistance from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and State Bank of India in addition to his own investment. Due to certain difficulties the industry could not be run on a regular basis. Further mor...
Reepik Ravinder Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Pros ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ595
1. This is an appeal filed by the sole accused, who was convicted under S. 376, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The brief facts of the case as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 10 are : P.W. 2, a minor girl of seven year, is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 3 while P.W. 4 is her maternal grand-mother. They are all residents of Hanamkonda. On 6-5-1987, the date of offence, P.W. 2 was sitting outside the house and taking food. At that time, the accused came there and called her stating that he would give her curry. He took her into his house. There he committed rape on her. Immediately after that P.W. 2 came back to her house and informed of the incident to her mother, P.W. 3, and grand-mother P.W. 4. P.Ws. 3 and 4 observed blood coming out of the vagina of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 though is a girl of 7 years, the Court below after putting some questions found her to be fit for examination. In her statement she narrated the whole i...
Jogi Nageswaramma Vs. Jogi Siva Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT579; II(1991)DMC208
N.D. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner who is the wife of respondent filed suit O.S. 143 of 69 on the file of Principal District Munsiff Court, Machili-patnam for maintenance. In that a compromise decree was passed according to which the respondent has to pay six bags of paddy to the petitioner every year towards maintenance. The petitioner-decree-holder filed E.P. 219/84 for realisation of the arrears of maintenance due to her by arrest of the judgment debtor raised the following objections: (1) that after the decree was passed the petitioner married one Kanka Gujju during the summer of 1970 and eversince she is living in adultery with him and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance ; (2) the cost of the paddy bags is not properly calculated ; (3) that he has no means to pay the amount and therefore he cannot be arrested. The learned District Munsif before whom the execution petition is filed enquired into the matter. On behalf of the petitioner one witness was examined and on ...
P.V. Krishna Prasad Vs. K.V.N. Koteswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ341
ORDER1. This is a petition filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is accused No. 1 in C.C. 82/89 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakalaripet. 2. The facts in brief are : The Ist respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another for different offences before the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripet, on 2-5-1988. After receiving the complaint, the Magistrate referred the same to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed a final report under section 173 stating the complaint to be 'false' on 19-5-1988. Thereupon, the Magistrate issued proceedings closing the case by accepting the report of the police. Copy of the report of the police was served, according to the complainant (Ist respondent), on 15-11-88 and thereafter on 2-1-1989 the Ist respondent filed a protest petition. After hearing the complainant, the Magistrate made an order on 10-3-89 holding that the Court has ample jurisdiction ...
Sri Kotagiri Seetharamayya and ors. Vs. the Divisional Forest Officer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT630
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. These two writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in two writ petitions. Writ Appeal Mo. 75/90 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.No. 4201/85 while Writ Appeal No. 113/90 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.No. 7312/ 1985. The points arising in these two writ petitions so filed are the same in all respects and the writ petitioner in each of the cases is the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. The only difference is that in W.P.No. 4201/1985 the claimants are impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 while in W.P.No. 7312/1985 the claimants are impleaded as respondents 1 to 12. The claimants i.e., respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No. 4201/85 and the respondents 1 to 12 in W.P.No. 7312/85 have respectively preferred these two appeals W.A.Nos. 75 and 113 of 1990. These persons will be referred to as the 'claimants' in the rest of this judgment.2. The property in question in the two writ petitions was ...
Ceat Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT187; 1994LC661(AP); 1991(56)ELT718(AP)
Writ Petition No. 603 of 1989 1. The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of glass fibre products. With effect from March 16, 1976 excise duty was levied on glass fibre products for the first time under Tariff Item No. 22-F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act). Tariff Item 22-F : 'Mineral Fibres and yarn and manufacturers therefrom in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, the following, namely (1) glass fibre and yarn including glass tissues and glass wool ..... 15% ad valorem.' Under Notification No. 87/76-C.E., dated March 16, 1976 the Central Government had exempted mineral fibres and yarn and manufacturers therefrom, falling under Tariff Item No. 22-F from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. 'Notification No. 87/76 dated 16-3-1976 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby...
Mohd. RiyazuddIn Vs. the General Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT506
P.L.N. Sarma, J.1. Initially, the petitioner preferred C.R.P.No. 266 of 1990 to this Court against an order of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda dismissing the application filed to condone the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 110-A Clause 3 of Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939). It is admitted that revision petition is not maintainable and only C.M.A. lies against the said order. (Vide Babumiyam & Mastan, 1985 (1) ALT 47. The counsel for the petitioner requested permission to convert the revision petition into CM.A., in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra (1). The limitation as well as stamp which is required to be paid on Memorandum of Appeal are the same for both the revision as well as CM.A. and the appeal also lies to this Court. So, in the interests of justice, the petitioner is permitted to convert the above Revision Petition No. 266 of 1990 as CM.A. Having given permission, I am proceeding to dispose of the ...
R.C. Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ887
ORDER1. In this revision, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a criminal Court after taking cognizance of an offence and before any evidence is let in subsequent to such taking cognizance can proceed against any person by impleading him as an accused. 2. The brief facts that gave rise to the question are : The de facto-complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed a report before the police making allegations against petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and seeking their prosecution u/S. 420, IPC. The police, however, filed a charge-sheet arraying petitioner No. 1 alone as an accused. The Court below took cognizance of the offence against petitioner No. 1 alone. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition in the Court below to implead petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as accused u/S. 190, Cr.P.C., making certain allegations specifically against them. The important contents of the petition are that the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses given to the police recite clear overt acts again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›