Andhra Pradesh Court January 1992 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.
Gangarapu Ushaiah Vs. the District Collector(Co-operation) Medak Distr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1992AP220; 1992(1)ALT662
ORDER1. The 2nd respondent herein who is the Election Officer issued a Notification on 2-1-1992 to hold the elections to the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Chin-takunta Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner has filed his nomination for membership of the Managing Committee for Ward No. 2, mentioning his serial No. 984 in the voter's list prepared for this purpose. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondentrejected the nomination of the petitioner bythe impugned order dated IO-1-I992 on thesole ground that his name at Serial No. 984 isnot tallied whereas his serial number is at 982.Assailing the validity of this rejection order,the petitioner filed this writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to set aside the impugned order anddirect the respondents to treat his nominationas valid.2. According to the election programme given by the 2nd respondent, 9-1-1992 is the date for filing nominations, 10-1-1992 is the ...
Basha MohiddIn Jilani and ors. Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager, Life ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT541
ORDER1. In these writ petitions, the question raised is whether the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India can restrict the candidates for pre-recruitment test after receiving the applications. The Life Insurance Corporation issued advertisement calling for applications for 50 posts of Sub-Staff including 12 for Scheduled Caste and 6 for Scheduled Tribe. In pursuance of the said advertisement, including those of petitioners, 3439 applications were received among which 635 belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Ex-Servicemen. 2804 are applications for the remaining 32 posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the advertisement was issued calling for applications prescribing some qualifications and the petitioners are qualified for the said posts, they are entitled to participate in the pre-recruitment test. Learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation Sri J.V. Suryanarayana Rao contended that even though applications are received in pursuance o...
Grandhi Venkataramarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT306
ORDER1. This criminal revision is filed against the Judgment in Crl.A. No. 142/90 dt. 3-12-90 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur.This is a case of adulteration wherein the accused was convicted and punished for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) and (2) (ia) and (m) of the P.F.A. Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State of A.P., 1986 (2) ALT 405 and contended that mixing a little of castor oil with groundnut oil does not amount to adulteration under Section 16(a)(i) but attracts Second proviso to Section 16. In that case the learned Judge held as follows:-'It is a matter of common knowledge that castor oil in limited doses is consumed though not as a drug. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that the second proviso to Section 16 is attracted to the facts of this case inasmuch as mixing a little quantity of castor oil with groundnut oil does not amount to adulteration within the meaning o...
Dr. (Mrs.) M. Thaha W/O. Shri A. Thaha, Officiating Director, Centre f ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT213
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions assail the selection and appointment of Dr. Tarun Bikar Lahiri and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh (respondents 3 in both the writ petitions) as Directors made by the National Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as 'NIRD') on different grounds. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, I intend to first dispose of the preliminary objection taken by Mr. V.V.S. Rao, the learned counsel for NIRD, that this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the instant writ petitions as NIRD is not a 'State' within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.Article 12 of the Constitution reads:'12. Definition.-In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Gov...
Hotel Annapoorna Karnataka State Charities Kalyana Mandapam Canteen Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT191
ORDERI. Panduranga Rao, J.1. This revision filed petition is filed by the plaintiff. He a suit for a declaration that the period of lease is three years commencing from 19-8-1987 and for consequential injunction.2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit, in brief, are as follows.3. In the Vaikuntam Queue Complex in Tirumala, the petitioner was granted a licence to cater to the needs of the pilgrims by supplying food stuffs to them while they are waiting in the queue on a monthly rent of Rs. 21,000 for a period of three years from 19-8-1987 to 18-8-1990. According to the revision petitioner, what has been granted in his favour is a lease but not licence.4. The grievence of the petitioner is that the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams has issued a lease as per Ex. A-1 in pursuance of the Board's resolution whereas the Deputy Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi without giving any notice has issued Ex. A-2 notice reducing the term of lease fro...
Padmavathi Oil and General Merchant and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT509
ORDERP.L. Narasimha Sarma, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the circular issued by first respondent in Ref.No. P5/69/87 dt.4-5-'87 in and by the terms of which, first respondent directed all the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officers to issue instructions to all the dealers in edible oils and edible oil seeds not to store any non-edible oil or non-edible seeds in the licence premises.2. The intention behind the above said impugned circular was that it came to the notice of the Government that some of the dealers in edible oils are storing non-edible oil, like Castor oil in the business premises with the intention of mixing with the edible oil. The petitioners are wholesale merchants in Vijayawada town and they are licenced dealers dealing in purchase and sale of oils, viz; groundnut oil, refind oil, Vanaspathi and gingilly oil which are all edible oils besides the coconut oil and castor oil which are non-edible. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that they are all having va...
P. Balraj and ors. Vs. A. Pochaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT575
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the Plaintiff challenging the order of the learned District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam rejecting the request of the petitioner/ plaintiff to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Normally no doubt photostat copy cannot be admitted in evidence. But in this case the original agreement of sale was sent by the court to the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam to find out the valuation of the suit property and to impound the document. The Sub-Registrar, after issuing so many reminders, reported to the Court that the document was lost.2. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 94/89 requesting the Court to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act empowers a party to let in secondary evidence:'When the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any ot...
Kothamasu Lakshmaiah Vs. Kothamasu Satyanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT334
ORDERPanduranga Rao, J.1. The short submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ J. Dr. relying upon a Division Bench decision of our High Court in K. Appa Rao v. J. Venkanna, 1969 (2) APLJ 475 is that without filing a Succession certificate, it is not open to the legal representative to be impleaded as second decree holder in the execution petition basing upon a will dt.7-5-83.2. The Division Bench held that the language employed in Section 244(i)(b) (of Indian Succession Act) is plain and clear enough to indicate that no Court shall proceed to execute a decree upon an application by a person claiming to be entitled thereto on succession and that it is not open to the petitioner to apply for execution of the decree obtained by his father without obtaining and producing a succession certificate as he claimed by succession and not by survivorship. In that case the decree holder died some time after 15-2-62 and thereafter his son claiming to have become entitled to...
S. Seetharamamma Vs. Kobagapu Krishnaveni and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT210
Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. The respondent No. 2 in O.P. No. 20/1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge) Srikakulam is the appellant herein.2. This Appeal has been filed by the wife of the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the amount that has been granted is highly excessive and also on the ground that in view of the distribution that has been made to the major sons, it has to be reduced. This appeal is filed against the award of the Tribunal to pay Rs. 45,000/- by the owner. The deceased was travelling as a passenger. As per the statutory liability, the liability is on the owner of the bus and the Insurance company. The liability of the Insurance Company is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- and the remaining liability has been fixed on the owner of the vehicle. The owner having aggrieved by the award of Rs. 45,000/-filed this appeal. In regard to the rash and negligent Act of the driver of the Vehicle, we are having the evidence of the P.W....
Gadde Tirupathaiah Vs. Ambadipudi Sundara Ramaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT351
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. The sole defendant in O.S.No. 1943/81 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is the petitioner herein. An exparte decree was passed on 24-6-82. Thereupon he filed I.A.No. 4951 /86 for setting aside the exparte decree passed against him. The learned Munsif Magistrate allowed that I.A. Challenging that decision of the learned Munsif Magistrate, the plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No. 22/88 in District Court, Guntur. The learned II Additional District Judge Guntur by order dt.30-12-88 has allowed the said C.M.A. Aggrieved by the said decision the defendant preferred this revision.2. The short point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal preferred by the respondent herein (plaintiff) itself is incompetent. In support of his contention, he relied upon Order 43, Rule 1 Sub-clause (d) of CPC which provides for an appeal only against an order passed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC rejecting an application for an o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »