Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
V. Kishore Kumar Vs. the State of A.P. Through the Secretary, Law (Cts ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT589
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29-5-1991 dismissing the writ petition.2. The writ petition was filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the sole respondent viz, State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary, Law (Courts) Department directing the respondent to issue a fresh notification calling for a panel of advocates for appointment of Public Prosecutor in the Courts of the District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad from among advocates who have put in a minimum of 7 years of practice as per Section 24(3) read with Section 24(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. The following are the facts of the case: The petitioner enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 9-9-1983. He has been practising in the Court at Sirpur town and Adilabad District Court. The petitioner states that initially the Government came up with the proposal to appoint a ...
R. Dilip Kumar and ors. Vs. the Vice Chancellor, Osmania University an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT484
ORDERUpendralal Waghray, J. 1. The three petitioners have approached this court questioning the appointment of respondents 8 to 13 as Lecturers in the Law Colleges of the Osmania University. The 1st respondent is the Vice-Chancellor and the 2nd respondent is the Registrar of the Osmania University. The Vice-Chancellor is also impleaded eonomine as 5th respondent. 3rd respondent is the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department. 4th respondent is the Secretary, University Grants Commission and respondents 6 and 7 are the Principals of University College of Law and Post-graduate College of Law respectively. The writ petition has been presented on 7-2-1990 and appointments were made some time in the first week of December, 1989 pursuant to the Interview held on 13-11-1989. 2. It is useful to notice some relevant facts before examining the controversies raised. The Osmania University is governed by the Osmania University Act of 1959 (hereinafter called the Act...
S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs. the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT436
ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks quashing of G.O. Ms. No. 244 M.A. dated 3-5-1991 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') removing the petitioner from the office of Chairman, Municipal, Council, Cuddapah, with immediate effect. 2. The Petitioner questions the legality of the said G.O. and the Notification appended thereto on the ground, among, others, that it is not a speaking order and does not give reasons for taking the said action as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no mention whatsoever in the said G.O. as to whether any of the charges or allegations against the petitioner were proved and that the statement therein that the explanation of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory does not satisfy the requirem...
Ashok Biyani and anr. Vs. Shree Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Rep. by D.K. M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT171
ORDERJagannadha Raju, J.1. This Criminal revision is filed against the dismissal of Crl.M.P 484 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The order now under challenge is dated 9th March,1990 and it is passed in a petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C for dispensing with the presence of the petitioners-accused.2. A perusal of the record /reveals that the accused never appeared before the Court and even without making the first appearance they have come forward with the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The petition filed before the trial Court does not give any justification for their seeking relief without making the first appearance. Except stating that they are residents of Bombay and that they would be forced to incur a lot of expenditure to appear in the Court at Sangareddy, no other ground is urged. It is true that Section 205 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision which permits the Court to dispense with the presence of the accused. But it should be re...
M. Raj Kumar, Contractor, Arrack Unit Vs. the Excise Superintendent an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT611
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1 . The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held on 15-9-90 for the arrack unit twin cities group of 128 arrack shops for the excise year 1990-91. The auction was knocked down in his favour. The petitioner complied with all the formalities for issuing of the licence. However the licence for Osmanshahi arrack shop was not issued to the petitioner. Challenging the action of the 1st respondent in not issuing the licence, he filed W.P. No. 13977/90 on 24-9-90. On 5-10-90 this court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to issue licence for the shop at Osmanshahi in the existing premises. The respondents curried the matter in appeal, W.A. No. 1223/90. On 29-10-90 a Divission Bench of this court dismissed the writ appeal. The petitioner says that he could not transact any business on account of not issuing of the licence and that he sustained heavy loss. He was thus constrained to issue notice to the respondents p...
Manne Pitcha Rao Vs. Nelluri Madhava Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT114
ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition was declared as elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Mangollu of Vatsavai Mandal in Krishna district at the election held on 12-3-1988 and he prays for quashing the order of the Election Tribunal (3rd respondent herein) dismissing I.A.No. 647 of 1988 in O.P.No. 8 of 1988 dated 22-2-1989. The said O.P.No. 8 of 1988 was filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is the unsuccessful candidate in the said election, questioning the election of the petitioner herein at the said election. The said I.A.No. 647 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner herein under Rule 16 of Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for striking of allegations in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the election petition in the said O.P. on the ground that they are frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and did not constitute any cause of action as they suffer from want of details or particulars.2. The 3rd respondent held in his order in the said I.A. dated 2...
Rev. T. Ananthan and Others Vs. P.C. BenjamIn and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP93; 1991(2)ALT572
ORDERSardar Ali Khan 1. By an orderdated 17-8-1991 a learned single Judge of this Court has referred this C.M.A. to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to whether an appeal, aggrieved by an order passed by the Vacation Civil Judge (Additional District Judge), Nel-lore, during vacations, in I. A. 385/91 in O. S. 25/91 on 31-5-1991, can be filed in the High Court. The learned single Judge entertained a doubt about the provisions of S. 32(5) and (6) read with S. 17 of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 and expressed his dissent with the decision rendered by another learned single Judge, reported in V. Rama Rao v. K. Balakotaiah, (1985) 2 Andh LT 276. In the order under reference it is stated that in the normal course an appeal shall He to the Subordinate Judge's Court or the District Court, as the case may be, against the decree or order passed by the District Munsif. Further more, it is stated that the scheme contemplated under S.32 is only limited during...
The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality Vs. Kambampati Venkateswara Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT245
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of validity of assessment of municipal tax for the years commencing from 1st October. 1978. A notice was issued for enhancement of tax on 12-2-1979 as per Ex. A. 1. The building was partly owner-occupied and partly let out to tenants. In the portion occupied by tenants, there are five tenants. In the portion occupied by the landlord there are six rooms. The suit was filed for a declaration that the above said special notice dated 12-2-1979 and the endorsement dated 29-3-1979 of the Municipality were illegal and for consequential injunction restraining the Municipality from collecting the enhanced tax with regard to assessment No. 7757 in Kakinada Municipality. The suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif by judgment dated 25-6-1982. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs throughout. The learned Subordinate Judge held that even though no ...
G. James and ors. Vs. G. Murali Krishna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT123
M.N. Rao, J.1. The appellants 9 in number were beneficiaries of land acquired by the Government, covered by survey No. 169 of Prattipadu Village in Guntur District, admeasuring Ac.6.97 cents and distributed to them in small extents. The 1st respondent herein filed Writ Petition No. 1842/1985 from out of which the present Writ Appeal arises, contending, inter alia, that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A was invalid, being violative of the specific provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Act (Act 11 of 1983) in that, within 90 days from the date of dispensing with Section 5A enquiry, possession was not taken.2. At the admission stage, the Writ Petition was allowed by Amareswari, J. on 7-3-85 observing-'If possession is not so taken the clause dispensing with the enquiry becomes inoperative and the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall apply. Since possession is no...
Smt. P. Jayalakshmi and Another Vs. V. Revichandran and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP190; 1991(2)ALT596; 1992CriLJ1315; I(1992)DMC273
ORDER1. This criminal revision case filed by the wife and the minor child arises out of Cri. M. P. No. 674 of 1989 in M. C. 23/88 on the file of IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.2. The first petitioner P. Jayalakshmi was married to the respondent Ravichandran who was working as a postman in Bangalore. The marriage was solemnized on 3-6-1987 at Thirachanoor near Tirupathi. The parents of the first petitioner reside at Tirupathi. The couple resided at Bangalore where the husband was working. Subsequently troubles arose and the wife was sent away. The husband filed a petition under Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 3-11-1988 in M. C. No. 573/88 in the Family Court at Bangalore. Subsequently on 19-12-1988 the wife filed a petition in the Magistrate's Court at Tirupathi seeking maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. in M. C. 23 of 1988. During the pendency of M. C. the first petitioner and her child-minor second petitioner filed Cri. M. P. No. 674/89 seek...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »