Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Crane Betel Nut-powder Works Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT472
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. M/s. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works, Sampath Nagar, Guntur-1 is the petitioner herein. The said Unit is engaged in the Manufacture of Crane Betel Nut Powder. It is stated that they are carrying on this business from a long time. Further more, it is the contention of the petitioner-company that Betel Nut Powder is made by mixing up saccharin also to the product. This product is packed in small and big packets and is marked under the emblem of 'Crane Betel Nut Powder'. It is admitted that there is an admixture of admixure of Saccharin in the product which is manufactured by the petitioner-company and which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioner-company asserts their right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and submits that the Government cannot stop them from doing their business by imposing conditions and launching criminal prosecution which are not warranted by any law.2. It would be appropriate to refer, at this ...
Syed Iqbal HussaIn Vs. Syed Nasamunnissa Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1823
ORDER1. The husband is the revision petitioner. His wife filed M.C. 41/83 in the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for maintenance u/S. 125, Cr.P.C. for her herself and her three minor children. The learned magistrate has awarded maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month for the wife and Rs. 100/- per month for each of the three children. The husband preferred Crl.R.C. 128/85 to this court and the maintenance was reduced to Rs. 125/- per month for the wife while confirming the maintenance awarded to the children. 2. While so, the wife and children filed M.C. No. 60/89 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad u/S. 127, Cr.P.C. claiming enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for each of them. The wife was divorced on 23-5-89. The learned magistrate has enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 300/- per month for the wife from 27-7-88 to 23-5-89. So far as the minor children are concerned, the learned magistrate enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 100...
South Central Railway Represented by Its General Manager Vs. B. Veera ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT252
M.N. Rao, J.1. As these writ-appeals are inter-connected the same are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal No. 592 of 1985 is directed against Writ Petition 5464 of 1982, and Writ Appeal No. 593 of 1985 is directed against Writ Petition 994 of 1980. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry or Railways the Railway Board represented by its Secretary, the General Manager, South Central Railway, the chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, and the Senior Personal Officer, South Central Railway, who are the respondents in the writ petitions, are the appellants herein. A learned Single Judge of this Court, Ramachandra Raju J., by a common order, allowed Writ Petition Nos. 994/80, 2444/82 and 5464/82 filed by B. Veeraraju, the respondent herein.3. The following facts are necessary to understand the contentions that arise for consideration: The respondent joined service in the Railways on 20-12-1955 as a Lower Division Clerk claiming himself to be a Konda...
B. Narasappa Vs. B. Govindappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT48
ORDERN.D. Patnaik, J.1. In execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the first respondent, the hypothecated property was brought to sale in EP No. 59/83 in O.S. No. 13/81 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kalyandurg. The petitioner herein and another filed a claim petition -EA No. 72/85 contending that they are the purchasers of the property and that the property has been sold at a low price. They filed another application EA No. 157/88 to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the land in question in order to ascertain its value. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application, against which this revision is filed.2. The learned District Munsif held that the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 CPC are not made applicable to execution proceedings in view of Section 141 C.P.C. and therefore, dismissed the petition.3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the petition under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC is not maintainable, it can be maintaine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›