Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Kollipara Sreeramulu Vs. Penumudi Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT222
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the third defendant against certain observations made against him in A.S. No. 93 of 1988 by the lower appellate court confirming the findings of the trial court. Admittedly, no decree is sought for by the plaintiff against the third defendant ncr was any decree granted by the trial court against him. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the third defendant preferred an appeal and that appeal was dismissed.2. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decree passed in an appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court. When there is no decree as such passed against the third defendant, the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for interfering with the judgment.3. If, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there are some unnecessary observations made against the third defendant which are not bas...
P. Nageswara Rao Vs. A. Subrahmanyam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP61
ORDER1. This C.R.P. arises out of the proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The tenant is the petitioner who has lost his cause before the appellate authority even'' though initially succeeded before the Prmiry Tribunal, namely, the Rent Controller. The pleas namely wilful default, acts of waste and bona fide requirement for personal occupation, raised by the respondent-landlord were rejected by the Rent Controller while the appellate authority has found favour with the respondent-landlord in so far as the issuerelating to personal requirement is concerned. An appraisal of evidence on record and dealing the matter comprehensively on this aspect, the appellate tribunal has found as a finding of fact that the personal requirement for the expansion of the school by the respondent-landlord is a bona fide one and as such ordered the eviction of the petitioner herein.2. Mr. Sri Raghuram, the learn...
Maddula Girish Kumar and anr., Minors Rep. by the Mother and Next Frie ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT43
ORDERN.D. Patnaik, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, regarding the stamp duty payable on two documents.2. According to the statement of the case set-out by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the following are the brief facts of the case.3. Two identical documents dated 12th October, 1974 were executed by Smt. Maddula Prameela, who is the second wife of Sri Maddula Pandurangarao of Machilipatnam as guardian of her two minor sons Jaya Veera Venkata Durga Prakash and Girish Kumar-the petitioners herein, in favour of their father Maddula Panduranga Rao. The recitals of the documents are that Maddula Panduranga Rao had four daughters through his first wife and in order to see that no disputes arise in future, the sons have received cash of Rs. 75,000/-, 990 grams of gold ornaments and 7000 grams of silver articles total value of Rs. 1,25...
T.N. Khambati and ors. Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Urban Land (C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT694
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. There are six petitioners. The first three are brothers and the next three are their sisters. They challenge a common appellate order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing three appeals filed by petitioners 1 to 3 against the orders dt.26.6.1982 and 22.12.1988 which the 2nd respondent had made under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The orders related to Urban Land in old No. l42/C corresponding to Municipal numbers 1.8.161. to 164 on Penderghast Road, Secunderabad. Respondents found petitioners Ho 3 to have 706.34 Sq.metres each of surplus land above the ceiling limits fixed under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioners submit that the above finding contained in the appellate order, which affirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, is illegal and unsustainable.2. Petitioners 1 to 3-the brothers, purchased 6794 Sq. metres of land consisting of a few resident...
B. Suresh Babu Vs. Kakathiya Grameena Bank, Hanamkonda and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD116
ORDER1. Two short, but important questions in the field of service law, arise for consideration in this writ application. They are: (i) Whether the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings of the enquiry officer - holding the delinquent not guilty - on all or some of the charges without giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer? and; (ii) If an opportunity is required to be given, is it necessary to supply a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the delinquent officer? 2. The facts that gave rise to these questions, in brief, are: The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the 1st respondent-Bank in the year 1985. During the year 1989 he was working in Azamnagar branch as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. Besides him there was a Branch Manager in that branch. Both of them were joint custodians of cash and safety vault. On 10-7-1989 the Administrative and Audit Officers of the 1st respondent-Bank inspected that branch and found certain irregularities. The petitioner w...
Ramesh Kumar Khurana Vs. the General Manager, Telephones
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT656
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the amount of payment of telephone charges pertaining to Telephone No. 556618 of which the petitioner is the subscriber. The complaint of the petitioner is that there is excess billing and even though complaint has been lodged on 20-2-1992 to the General Manager, Telephones, Hyderabad, no action has been taken and no proper enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, towards arrears of telephone bills. Aggrieved by the said interlocutory order, writ appeal (W.A.No. 572 of 1992) has been filed contending that the said imposition is onerous.2. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the fact finding court so as to make roving enquiry into the correctness of the billing etc. To record a finding on the contentions involved, oral testimony is necessary. The oral testimony involves...
P. Rama Rao Vs. Srikakulam Municipality
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP255; 1992(3)ALT646
ORDER1. Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. The facts which are not at all in dispute are that the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed the suit for the following reliefs :(a) for a declaration that the proceedings of the defendant in RC.No. 3775/82/E2 dt. 3-5-89 is arbitrary, illegal and capricious and liable to be set aside; (b) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the remaining portion of the work of the tender to be done by the plaintiff only; 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the contractor for the construction of shopping complex being the lowest tenderer and alleging that the plaintiff failed to complete the work in time, under the impugned proceedings, the respondent-Municipality cancelled the contract, which was in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the suit for two reliefs : (a) for a declaration that the proceedings cancelling the contract are arbitrary, illegal and capricious; and ...
Kolla Sivaramakrishnaiah and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT495
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. On 11-7-1988 at about 3-30 P.M., the gravamen of the charge is, the first appellant committed the murder of Makineni Satyanarayana by stabbing him with a knife at the instigation of appellant No. 2 at Chinaravuru Railway Station. The first appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and the 2nd appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 341.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 97/89 on the file of the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Vijayawada. The appellants were convicted of the offences with which they were charged and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 22-2-1991. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is that M. Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') had seven daughters and the 5th daughter, Kanakadurgamma, was first given in marriage to one Pathuri Venkateswararao of Chinnap...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.R. Constructions
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR222(AP)
1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, made this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of the High Court on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 was valid.' 2. When this reference came up before a Division Bench of this court, it referred the case to a Full Bench to resolve the difference of opinion expressed by two Division Benches in Ch. Atchaiah v. ITO : [1979]116ITR675(AP) and Choudry Brothers v. CIT : [1986]158ITR224(AP) . It, however, added these two questions for the opinion of the Full Bench : '(1) Under what circumstances can one Division Bench differ from the view of an earlier Division Bench; and (2) Under what circumstances can the doctrine of per incuriam be applied by a co-ordinate Division Bench for not following the earlier binding pr...
Siva Nagayya and ors. Vs. Ahmed Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT624
A. Venkatarami Reddy, J.1. The Second Appeal, S.A.No. 273/90 is preferred by defendants 3 to 9, 11 to 14, 16 and 18 to 22 and the Second Appeal No. 610/90 is preferred by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 25 of 1976, arise out of the judgment in A.S.No. 108/78. As parties are common and common question arises for consideration in both these.2. The first respondent in both the second appeals viz. Ahmed Khan is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 25/76 on the file of the District Munsif, Vikarabad. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and pattedar and is in possession of the land bearing S.No. 39 at Manneguda Village. He and prior to him his father-in-law, Jarawar Khan were in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 45 years. About 45 years back the plaintiff planted 200 mango trees, dug a well and constructed a house in the said land and subsequently raised two huts for his farm servants. While so, on 12.4.76 the second defendant accompanied by the Revenue Inspect...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »