Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
Syed Amjad Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1920
1. The sole accused, on being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, dated 11th July, 1990, in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1988, on her file, convicting him for the offences under sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years under each count and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently, has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :- P.W. 2 Salma Begum is the daughter of P.W. 1 Jeelani Begum. The father of P.W. 2 is working in Saudi Arabia and she is living with her mother, P.W. 1, and she was in her custody by the date of the incident, i.e., on 18-2-1988. P.W. 2, the victim girl was studying X Class in Hyderabad Model High School in Moghalpura. The accused, who was acquainted with P.W. 2, induced her and took her to Jahanuma on 18-2-1988 and married her. The marriage between P.W. 2 and the accused...
Yadavalli Apparao Vs. the Collector, (Pt Wing) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT475
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This writ petition is filed by a resident of Markondapadu village of Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari district seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 19-2-1988 issued by the 1st respondent reserving the office of the Sarpanch of Markondapadu Gram Panchayat for the Scheduled Caste voters as illegal and to direct the 1st respondent to renotify the office of the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat as 'General Office'.2. The Second proviso to Section 12(1) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act mandates that 15% of the total number of offices of the Sarpanch in a Mandal other than a scheduled area shall be reserved by the District Collector, by rotation from term to term, for the members belonging to the scheduled castes in such a way that the Gram Panchayat in respect of which the office of Sarpanch is so reserved shall as far as practicable, be the gram panchayat where the proportion of the population of the Scheduled castes to the total population o...
K. Yeshoda Bai Vs. K. Shankara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT570
ORDERRadha Krishna Rao, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool reducing the quantum of maintenance which was enhanced by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur.2. Originally, the petitioner was granted a sum of Rs. 250/- per month towards maintenance. On a revision filed by the first respondent herein, the, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 150/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 283 of 1990 for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the cost of living has gone up. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of all the relevant facts, enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 250/- per month. On a revision filed by the first respondent herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the learned Sessions Judge found that no valid reasons are put forth for enhancement of the maintenance and accordingly, the learned...
Team Leader, Army Team, Bharat Dynamics Limited and ors. Vs. Major C.V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT537
A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Judge dated April 15,1992 in writ petition No. 3131 of 1992 which was filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein, in posting him to 43 EME Battalion vide Army Headquarter's Signal (Telegram) 389339/MS EME dated December 20, 1991 as illegal, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition declaring that the transfer of the respondent herein to 43 EME Battalion by the Army Headquarter's Signal, dated December 20,1991 was illegal, invalid and inoperative. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal.2. For the appreciation of the points that arise for consideration in this writ appeal, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts. After completing his education at Sainik School, Korukonda, the respondent herein, joined the National De...
Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC98; 1994(69)ELT482(AP)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal, the 2nd respondent herein, in Proceedings No. C. No. V/17/30/11/84/MPI/Adjudication Order No. 4/85 (M.P.) dated 29-5-1985 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent in letter dated 3-6-1985, by praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the said orders as illegal, null and void. 2. The first petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The 2nd petitioner is one of the shareholders. Under Rule 8(i) of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Government issued Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979. It was subsequently amended by Notification No. 105/82 dated 28-2-1982, granting certain exemptions. The petitioner filed declarations for the excisable goods i.e. paper and paper boards of different varieties from time to time, under the said notification, the 1st petitioner-company was availing pr...
Dr. Mrs. Akbar Quadri Vs. Dr. K. Singaraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT543
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner/appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for receiving three documents by way of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant relied upon a single Judge decision of Karnataka High Court in Sangawwa v. Shankarappa, : AIR1992Kant211 and argued that provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC are applicable to Second Appeal and that additional evidence by way of documents can be allowed to be produced in second appeal. But a Division Bench of our High Court has taken a contrary view in Anisetti Bhagyavathi v. A. Satyanarayana, 1992 (1) APLJ 18 (NRC) holding that an application to receive additional evidence cannot be permitted at the stage of Second Appeal. The reasoning given by the Division Bench is that the High Court while hearing the Second Appeal cannot go into the questions of fact and the question of admitting additional evidence in the Second Appeal does not arise. I am bound by the Di...
G.M. Jeelani Vs. Shanswar Kulsum and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)171; 1994CriLJ271
ORDER1. The present revision came to be filed under the following circumstances. The revision petitioner is one Sri G. M. Jeelani, hereinafter referred to as the husband. The first respondent in the revision petition is the wife and the second respondent is the daughter of the revision petitioner. They will be hereinafter referred to as the wife and minor daughter. The first respondent was married to the petitioner at Mandapeta as per Muslim rights on 5-5-1975. For some time they lived together resulting in the birth of the second respondent. It appears that subsequently differences arose between the parties resulting in the husband divorcing the wife by saying irrevocable Talaq on 2-7-1980. Subsequently the wife filed M.C. No. 45 of 1980 on the file of the learned II Additional J.F.C.M. Kakinada, under section 125 Crl.P.C. for maintenance for self and for her minor daughter. Having heard the matter, the learned II Addl. J.F.C.M. awarded maintenance at Rs. 300/- and Rs. 50/- respective...
K.V.N. Koteswara Rao Vs. P.V. Krishna Prasad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT8; 1994CriLJ833
ORDER1. This revision case has come up under the following circumstances : The petitioner filed a private complaint on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, against the respondents 1 and 2 under sections 120B, 406, 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police for further investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It appears that the Police having enquired the matter referred the case as 'false'. Of course, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the police have not communicated a copy of the same to the petitioner as required under Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code. Later the learned Magistrate having accepted the final report given by the police closed the proceedings in R.C.S. No. 23/88 dated December 13, 1988. Of course, it is the further grievance of the petitioner that while passing the orders dated December 13, 1988 in R.C.S. No. 23/88 the...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Mujataba Khan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ542; 1992(3)ALT655; (1994)ILLJ259AP
N.D. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ranga Reddy district in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 36 of 1990.2. The first respondent herein who was working as a driver under the second respondent met with an accident on March 3, 1989 while he was driving a van bearing No. AHT 5733, on account of which, his right leg was operated twice. The percentage of disability was estimated at 6 per cent. The learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 64,584 on the basis that the workman was getting Rs. 1,000 per month and also granted interest of Rs. 6,780.3. In this appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, two contentions have been taken. One is that the pay of the workman was only Rs. 900 per month and the learned Commissioner was wrong in including the Batta payable to the workman at Rs. 20 per day.4. The definition of wages in Section 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads:''Wages' includes any privilege or benefit which i...
Guduru Sriramaiah and ors. Vs. Kallam Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT700
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 13 of the Andnra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the 1st respondent-tenant from the land mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The Special Officer designated under the A.P. Tenancy Act (Munsif-Magistrate, Mangalagiri) allowed the application holding that the tenant denied the title of the landlord and committed default in the payment of rent to the real owner. On appeal to the District Judge, Guntur, the order of the Special Officer was revered and the eviction order was set aside. The learned District Judge held that the title of respondents 1 to 4 before him (writ petitioners herein) to the petition-schedule land was not prima facie established and therefore the question of denial of title of the landlord and failure in the payment of rent to respondents 1 to 4 did not arise. According to the findings of tine learned District Judge, the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »