Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
T. Venkat Ram Reddy Vs. D. Gopalakrishnam Raju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1247
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed, at the instance of the petitioner, against the order of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 13th August, 1991 passed in Crl. M.P. Nos. 621 and 783 of 1991 in C.C. No. 3 of 1990, on his file, refusing to grant permission for withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are briefly as follows : Defamatory material (Ex. P. 2) was published against the Ist respondent herein viz., Mr. D. Gopalakrishnam Raju, I.P.S. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Administration, Hyderabad City Police Hyderabad, who is a public servant. He is the aggrieved person. Pursuant to the application filed by him, the State Government accorded sanction under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the accused and Special Public Prosecutor, Sri Sitapathi was also appointed to conduct prosecution. The sanction was given as per G.O. No. 3623 dated 15-9-1986 wh...
Ganeshlal and anr. Vs. Najamunnisa Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT62
ORDERN.D. Patnaik, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 in these two revisions have filed a petition R.C. 115/1986 in the Court of the Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rent. Five respondents were impleaded in that petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original tenant by name Shankar Lal. Respondents 3 to 5 are the sub- tenants. The Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that the landlords have established that the tenant committed wilful default and ordered eviction. Against that an appeal R.A.No. 508/1988 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in R.C. 115/86 and respondent No. 4 therein before the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act i.e., Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate authority has also agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant had committed willful default and therefore dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. 1611/91 is fi...
Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC164(AP)
P. Venkatrama Reddy, J. 1. These three T.R.Cs. are filed against a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 18, 1987, in T.A. Nos. 612/85, 521/83 and 466/83, respectively. T.A. No. 466/83 (on the file of S.T.A.T.) arose out of the assessment made against the petitioner-company for the year 1980-81. T.A. No. 521/83 relates to the year 1981-82. T.A No. 612/83 also relates to the same year, i.e., 1981-82. All the three appeals were dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence these tax revision cases.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in cement. For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the amounts of Rs. 43,01,169 and Rs. 89,64,519 were collected towards the freight charges from the stockists and dealers by way of assessment and reassessment orders (sic). The legality of these assessments is challenged in T.R.C. Nos. 287 and 208 of 1988. For the assessment year 1981-82, the Commercial Tax Officer made a reassessment revising the tax from 4 1...
Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society Rep. by Its President M. Pentayya a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT551
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. One Mohammed Azam (petitioner in S.L.P. No. 1679/89) and his family members are the owners of an extent of Ac. 24-00 of land situate in Bagh Amberpet revenue village within the limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Out of this, an extent of Ac. 18-03 guntas was notified by the State Government for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act): G.O.Rt. No. 68 dated 4-6-1975 was issued under the HUDCO scheme for construction of houses for persons belonging to economically weaker sections, low income group and middle income group. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked and the procedure contemplated under Section 5A was dispensed with. Thereafter the declaration under Section 6 was issued by a further notification dated 25-4-1978. On 6-4-75 M/s. Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society entered into an agreement with Mohd. Azam and others for purchase of the land in order to divide it into plots and allot to it...
J.S. Raghupathi Rao Vs. Smt. P. Ramadevi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT332
Eswara Prasad, J.1. The Court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the Original Suit agreement was not filed and only a Xerox copy was sought to be filed alongwith the plaint. Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, a plaint can be rejected only in cases enumerated in Rule 11 and not otherwise. Non-filing of the suit agreement is not one of the grounds on which, a plaint can be rejected.2. The petitioner submitted in the lower Court that the original agreement of sale was misplaced and was not traceable and hence Xerox copy was filed along with plaint. The learned Judge was not correct in insisting on an explanation as to how the document was lost and as to what are the efforts made to trace the document. The petitioner stated in resubmitting the plaint that the Original agreement was lost and is not traceable for the present. No further explanation can be submitted by the petitioner. When the Original is not traceable, it is open to the petitioner, to file Xerox copy and the matter has to...
Adapa Venkateswara Rao and ors. Vs. Y. Venkataramana Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT333
1. At the time of final hearing of the miscellaneous petition (W.A.M.P. No. 2270 of 1992), all the learned Advocates for the parties agreed that the hearing of the miscellaneous petition may be treated as final hearing of the main writ appeal. Accordingly, we have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties on the merits of the writ appeal itself and the same will be disposed of by this judgment.2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be stated at the outset. The first respondent is the original writ petitioner while the original respondents 3 to 6 are the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 1306 of 1992, and the Regional Transport Authority, the original respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, is the second respondent in the appeal. Hereafter, we shall refer to the respective parties as original writ petitioner and the concerned original respondents in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.3. The original writ petitioner is a Transport Operator. He sought fo...
Barla Ganga Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1998
1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Sessions Case No. 91/89, convicting the appellant for an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : On 9-8-88 at about 5-30 p.m., P.W. 5 was going to his field through a lane in front of the cattle shed of the deceased. He heard a groaning sound and looked into the shed. When he reached the Varandah of the shed, he found the accused stabbing on the throat of Lingaiah, the deceased. P.W. 5 then called 'Ore Ore' and tried to catch hold of the accused. But he escaped and ran into the house of P.W. 2, who was his tenant. Lingaiah; the deceased fell down and died immediately. P.W. 5 then ran to the house of the deceased and informed P.W. 1 and the wife of the deceased. All of them went to the cattle shed and saw the dead body. P.W. 1 approached the village doctor and with his assistance drafted Ex. P-1 report. He went to the Poli...
P. Ramaiah and anr. Vs. M. Mallesham and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT325
ORDERA. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellants herein are the parents of the deceased P. Laxminarayana who was involved in an accident on 6-4-1984 caused by the lorry bearing No.A.P.T.7998. As a result of the accident, he died. At the time of the accident he was working as a cleaner. According to the claimants, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 500/- P.M. and Rs. 8/- as daily allowance. Having found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 37,600/ -. The Tribunal has taken all the relevant circumstances into consideration while awarding the compensation.2. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimants filed C.M.A. No. 777/88 in this Court. Having found that the compensation awarded to the claimants was quite reasonable, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that ...
A.S. Bhatti Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Home Affairs, Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT11
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the order dt.15-5-1989, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as Asst. Commandant, C.I.S.F. issued by the third respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to declare Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules as violative of principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents not to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service till he attains the age of superannuation.2. The case of the petitioner is that after joining the service in C.I.S.F., he married a girl from a rich family. His parent-in-law did not like the petitioner to continue in service and desired that the petitioner should resign and join their business in England. The petitioner rejected the offer and maintained to have his independence. On account of his refu...
G. David @ Devaiah Vs. Saramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT451
ORDERV. Neeladri Rao, J.1. All these revision petitions are directed against the orders of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.Nos. 363,350,366,365,367 and 364 of 1991 respectively. All these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order as they are against the common judgment and as the same points are involved.2. The facts which give rise to these proceedings are briefly as under. The respondents in all the eviction petitions were the tenants of late Shantamma, the original owner of the premises, the various portions of which were let out by her to these tenants. The petitioner, who is the revision petitioner in all these revision petitions, filed the eviction petitions against these respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The contention for the eviction petitioner is that he purchased this premises from late Shanthamma under registered sale deed dated 5-5-1980 and all these six tenants attorned to him orally. Smt. Vimalamma, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »