Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Lam Jaya Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2127
ORDER1. In this revision the petitioner challenges his conviction u/S. 333 of the Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year as confirmed by the appellant Court. 2. The facts of the case as deposed to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 (the injured and eye-witnesses) in brief are : The accused was working as a watch-man in the office of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Tadepalligudem in West Godavari. P.W. 1 was working as an Assistant Manager in the said office and was public servant within the meaning of S. 21, IPC while so on 1-5-86 at 9.00 a.m. one Lanka Suryanarayana and another Tota Ram Rao (P.W. 5) (Staff of the said office) were coming to the office with coding reports for being presented before P.W. 1. The accused standing near the entrance gate, obstructed them from going into the office and also abused them in filthy language. Both of them therefore, having managed to go inside reported the misbehaviour of the accused to P.W. 1. On 2-5-1986 at abou...
Toguru Sudhakar Reddy and Etc. Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP19; 1991(3)ALT173
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. As all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By these writ petitions the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 10 of 1971 and Rule 22(C) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 220, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991 and Rule 22(A)(3)(a) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 224, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991, are challenged.3. In the year 1987 elections were held to the Managing Committees of the Co-operative Societies in the State. The term of office of the managing committees at that time was five years. By an Ordinance issued on 30th June, 1990, the term of the managing committees was reduced to three years, as a consequence of which, almost all the managing committees ceased to exist. In order to fill the void, the Government issued various orders appointing Officers as persons-in-charge. Challenging the same, a batch of writ petitions, W.Ps. Nos. 8783 of 1990 and batch, was filed ...
P. Visweswara Rao Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, Education D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT252
Eswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is a lecturer in Sree Konaseema Bhanoji Ramars College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District Respondents 4 and 5 are the Correspondent and the Principal of the said college. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings of respondents 4 and 5 dt.29-9-89 as illegal and for a further declaration that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years together with pay and allowances and other benefits such as, leave, special leave etc., and also for a further declaration that the petitioner is entitled to pension gratuity and all other financial benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the College of the 4th respondent as Tutor on 22-8-68 and that he is presently working as a lecturer. His contention is that he is entitled to continue in service until he completes the age of sixty years. The date of birth of the plaintiff is 1-12-81 and he is entitled to be in service till 30-11-91 respondent...
Someswara Cements and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT593(AP)
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioners herein are Mini- Cement Plants, who have come into production on the various dates mentioned in the writ petition. The Department of Industrial Development in the Ministry of Industry set up two working groups to study and make recommendations on setting up of Mini-Cement Plants for the manufacture of cement. One working group was to go into the question of the choice of technology and the other group was for studying the fiscal incentives to be granted to such mini cement plants to attract the entrepreneurs. The reports submitted by these working groups were considered by the Government of India and a decision was taken to facilitate speedy establishment of mini cement plants. The decision so taken by the Government of India offering incentives for establishment of mini cement plants is contained in a Press-Note No. 9-98/78 Com. dated 4th January, 1979. A brief reference to the said notification reveals that the Government of India was concerned w...
Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and Dock Workers Union Vs. Visakhapatn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT292; (1992)IILLJ261AP
Eswara Prasad, J.1. This writ Petition was referred to this Bench on a reference made by our learned brother Ramaswamy J., (as he then was) as to whether it is competent for the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board to revise the datum without constituting a Committee, as required by CI. 41(2) of the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959. Our learned brother Sardar Ali Khan, J., took the view in W.P. No. 15814/86 dated September 9, 1987 that CI. 41(2) of the Scheme is mandatory and that the action of the Board in revising the datum without constituting a Committee under CI. 41(2) of the Scheme, is illegal, Ramaswamy J., disagreed with the above view and referred the matter to a Division Bench. Thus the matter came up before us. 2. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and Dock Workers Union ('The Union' for short) question the resolution dated July 27, 1985 (No. 57 of 1985) of the respondent Board, as being beyond the powers of the Board, inasmuch as the said resolutio...
L. Gotham Chand Vs. the District Judge and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT489
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act; 1939 reads:''owner' means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the Vehicle under that agreement.'Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, lays down a detailed procedure for seizure of property liable to confiscation. Section 44(2-C) says that if the 'owner' of the vehicle used in the commission of a forest offence proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the vehicle was used 'without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent' and that all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of the vehicle were taken, the authorised officer shall not pass the order of confiscation. Section 44(2-E) enables 'any person aggrieved' by the order of confiscation to file an appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction ...
K. Ramana Reddy and ors. Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT437
Easwara Prasad, J.1. The petitioners are the members of Valigonda Mandal Praja Parishad for short. The third respondent is the president of the MPP. The Petitioners are questioning the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 335 PR & RD (Mandal II) Department dated 31-5-1989 issued by the first respondent State Government and are praying for a declaration that the third respondent ceased to be the president of MPP on the ground that the third respondent committed default in holding the meeting of the MPP, as required under Section 26(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Mandal Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads & Zilla Pranalika Abhvridhi Sameeksha Mandals Act, Act No. 3 of 1986 (The 'Act', for brevity).2. The third respondent was elected as the president of the Valigonda Mandal Praja Parishad on 15-3-87. According to the Petitioners, the third respondent held a meeting of the MPP on 24-12-87 and thereafter did not convene any other meeting within the period prescribed under Section 26(7) of the Act, thereby ...
Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT399
1. The Hyderabad Industries Limited, Sanatnagar is the Petitioner herein praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 55,326-96 illegally levied, collected and retained by the 2nd Respondent.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Hyderabad and one of the manufacturing units at Sanatnagar. It was formerly known as Hyderabad Asbestos Limited. The company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Asbestos Cement products. The raw-material utilised for this purpose is raw asbestos which is imported from outside. The imports are cleared for ware-housing at petitioner's factory unit at Sanatnagar and subsequently on payment of customs duty, are removed from the ware-house under Section 46 of the Customs Act. In the matter of valuation of the import and arriving at the duty payable thereon, the notified exchange value of rupee to the concerned foreign currency, ...
The Public Prosecutor and anr. Vs. R. Purushotham Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT630
ORDERRadhakrishna Rao, J.1. The Criminal appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 420 IPC. read with 511 PC. and the Crl. petition is filed by the State and de facto complainant to quash the notice of the learned IX M.M. Hyderabad, in Crl. MP.No. 1062/90 in C.C No. 230/89 dt. 12-9-90. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-4 88 a complaint was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police stating that the accused has submitted 22 application forms on 22-2-88 to get sanction of scholorships to the students claiming that the said students were staying in Priyadarshini M.P.H. Training Institute at Parlakhemudi of Orissa State., that on verification it was revealed that there was no such Institution at Parlakhemudi in Orissa State and thus a case in Cr.No. 93/ 88 was registered under Section 420 1.P.C. Duly taking into account the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the other material evidence, the learned Magistrate held that no case has been made out. Eve...
Aimala Jayaram Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT686; 1992CriLJ2217
ORDER1. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint u/S. 7(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act') against her husband before the Ist Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, on the ground that her husband and father-in-law were liable to handover and deliver the amount and articles said to have been given to them at the time of her marriage and since they have failed to return the same they are liable for punishment under the Act. The said complaint was taken on file on 15-4-1987. 2. Pending disposal of the said petition, the husband filed an application u/S. 7(b) of the Act, requesting the Court to dismiss the complaint u/S. 7(2) of the Act on the ground that the same is barred by time. 3. The facts of the case are : the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant i.e. the wife took place on 16-8-1984. The alleged payment of dowry was made, according to the complainant, to the father of the petitioner by her father on 9-7-1984 an...