Andhra Pradesh Court October 1991 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.
G. Nageswara Rao Vs. State of A.P. Represented by Public Prosecutor, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT546
ORDERRadha Krishna Rao, J.1. On a charge-sheet filed against the petitioner herein in Crime No. 140 & 691 of 1988 of Nagarampalem police station alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the VI Additioanl District Munsif guntur convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years under each of the two counts but however directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District and Sessions Judge Guntur. The District and Sessions Judge, Guntur confirmed the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years under each count to one year under each count and also directed the sentences to run concurrently. Yet aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against him the accused perf erred this revision. The case of t...
Indian Bank, Warangal Branch Vs. Srinivasa Timber Depot and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT535
ORDERJ. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The Revision is directed against an order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal allowing I.A.No. 769/1988 in O.S.No. 163/1980, permitting amendment of the written statement filed by the respondents, setting up counter-claim against the petitioner-bank for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 20-11-1979.2. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amounts said to be due from the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on 20-11-1981 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. On 15-11-1988, the respondents filed I.A.No. 769/1988 praying for an amendment of the written statement, as mentioned above. The learned judge allowed the petition and the present revision is filed by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the said order.3. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Order VIII, Rule 6-A C.P.C., the application for amendment was not maintainable, as the written stat...
Sri Rao Venkata Manipathi Rama Ratna Rao Vs. Smt. M. Rajya Lakshmi and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT558
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 86 filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge Kakinada by the respondents 1 and 2, seeking a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 168/1972 obtained by the petitioner is not binding on them.2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed A.A. No. 2350/88 for amendment of the plaint under Order 1, Rule 10, Order 6, rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, stating that the suit was filed on behalf of A.P. Brahma Samaj and Kakinada Brahmasamaj, but by mistake the individual names of respondents 1 and 2 were mentioned as plaintiffs 1 and 2, though they represented the A.P. Brahmasamaj and Kakinada Brahmasamaj respectively, that subsequently new presidents were elected for respondents 3 and 4, registered bodies and that respondents 3 and 4 are to be impleaded as plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit and the cause title should be amended accordingly. The learned judge allowed the said application and the revision is filed against the said order.3. Sr...
In Re: State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1827
ORDER1. As the case is coming from a tribal area of Srikakulam District, the learned Agency Magistrate by following the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge registered the case as Sessions Case No. 19 of 1991 and made it over for disposal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge raised an objection that the committal order itself is bad as the provisions under the new Code of Criminal Procedure alone are applicable. The reason that has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that in S. 1(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the expression 'tribal areas' has been mentioned. While construing the 'tribal areas' the learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration the explanation to proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 1 of that Code read with para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and came to the conclusion that the 'tribal areas' that have been men...
V. Shyamala Vs. Smt. L. Kalavathi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP298
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J. 1. The first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 8626 of1991 against an order dated June 19, 1991 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in A. P. No. 208 of 1991 dismissing the appeal. In that writ petition the appellant herein filed W.P.M.P. No. 11685 of 1991 to implead her as party-respondent. The learned single Judge dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by that order this writ appeal is preferred.2. It would be necessary to refer to some of the relevant facts for the purpose of appreciating the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The first respondent herein applied for the grant of a permit on the route Vempalli Cross to Gandi Via Kummarampalli and Veeranna Gattupalli. The route is of a length of 7.5 Kms. The application of the first respondent was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah on Feb. 21, 1991. Thereafter, the appellant herein applied for the grant of permit in respect of the very same route. Her app...
Dr. Mansoor Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Tamsem Fatima and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT290
Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment of the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No. 134/90 confirming the conviction of A-l and A-2 for an offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence to suffer R.I for one year and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.D. to suffer S.I. for four months. They were further directed to return Rs. 75,000/- to P.W.2 within one month from the date of the order. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of A-2 under Section 406 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: A-1 and A-2 are brothers. P.W.I is the wife of A-l. A-l married P.W.I on2O-1-85 at Hyderabad as per Muslim Personal Law. Subsequently she was subjected to cruel treatment and later driven out of the house of A-l. Since 8-6-85 she was living with her parents. Prior to the marriage a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid towards Ghoda Joda Ki Rakam and it is alleged that the same was n...
Jannalagadda Venugopal Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT531
ORDERJ. Eswara Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.The petitioner is the judgment-debtor in O.S.No.99/80 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali. In execution of the decree, the respondent-Bank filed an application for arrest of the petitioner. According to the affidavit of the petitioner filed in this Court in CMP No.19267/89, he filed a counter before the lower Court stating that he was not passed of any property and that he was not employed and that he had no means to discharge the decreetal amount. In spite of the said averments in the counter, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali, straight away ordered the arrest of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner was absent when called on 29-11-89 and he was set ex parte. But yet, the Court cannot ignore the mandatory provisions of Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code. Proviso to Section 51 is in the following terms:'Section 51 :Provided that, where the decre...
Samayamanthula Srihari and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC446(AP)
A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the house bearing door No. 3-1-218 situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari district. Their grievance is that the third respondent who is not even a tenant had applied for registration under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, in respect of the premises referred to above and got the registration certificate granted on July 30, 1991, by the Commercial Tax Department. It may be noticed that section 12 of the Act which deals with registration of dealers does not mention anything about the premises. It merely mentions about the nature of the business that the dealer intends to carry on. However, rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which prescribes the procedure for submitting an application for registration provides that every application for registration shall be in form 'D'. Rule 28(10)(d) provides that where the authority is satisfied that the application is not bona fide and...
Chada Venkatarama Sarma Vs. Bank of India and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT312
ORDERNeeladri Rao, J.1. The first respondent in ASSR No. 4377/87 on the file of the Third Addl,, Dist. Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner herein. The 1st respondent herein filed OS No. 215/84 in the court of the 1st Addl. Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for recovery of money due from the revision petitioner herein and the second respondent herein. That suit was decreed in part on 29-1-87. The trial court held that as the defendants in the suit are agriculturists, they are entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938, by following the judgment of this court. But the Supreme Court held in Bank of India v. Vijay Transport and Ors., : [1988]1SCR961 that Act. 4/88 is not applicable to debts due to Nationalised banks. The 1st respondent herein preferred an appeal on 7-12-87. As there was delay of 39 days in preferring the appeal, IA No. 1474/87 was filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. It was pleaded that after receiving certif...
Thatikonda China Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT19
Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This appeal is preferred by A.1 in S.C.No.181 of 1989, on the file of the 'Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, against his conviction and sentence. After trial, A-1 was convicted for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.1 for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A-2 'was acquitted. A.1 was also charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C, but he was acquitted of the charge.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased (wife of A.1) was harassed during her lifetime after marriage and A.1 developed the idea of getting rid of deceased and to marry the daughter of P.W.10. Due to this reason A.1 caused the murder of his wife. With regard to the cause of death. A.1 got benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.3. The deceased is a young lady and she was not ailing with any serious disease, which made her to commit suicide. P.W.2, the elder sister of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was complaining to her that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »