Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
G. Murali Krishna and anr. Vs. P. Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT316
ORDERRanga Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the tenants against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 10/88 reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.C. No. 29/81 and directing eviction of the petitioners- tenants on the ground of wilful default.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are in brief as follows: For purpose of convenience, I would refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the application for eviction. The petitioner in R.C.C. No. 29/81 is the owner of a non-residential building bearing No. 6/370 New D. No. 9-21-10 situated at Rajahmundry. The respondents took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Rent was payable on first of every succeeding month. The tenancy commenced on 10-10-1980. The respondents committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of January and February 1981. It is further contended that the respondents also failed to pay a sum of Rs. 30/- from out of the rent payable from...
P. Kanakarajaratnam Vs. Deputy Inspector General, Rpf, South Central R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT490
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Rakshak (subsequently designated as constable) in the South Central Railway Protection Force of Vijayawada Division in 1962. On the allegation of theft of 49 'bhogi shackle used pins' on 31-10-1979, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer on 14-10-1983. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Security Officer. His appeal was dismissed on 19-9-1984. Then he filed a Second Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of R.P.F., South Central Railway, the 1st respondent herein. That appeal was also dismissed by the 1st respondent on 4-10-1985. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said order of the 1st respondent by praying for a writ of mandamus to declare that order as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a further direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential and incidental benefits.2. The petitioner submits that the Railw...
Dynamatic Forgings India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Nagarjuna Investment Trusts ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1992
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas583(AP); 1993CriLJ1206
Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.1. The petition is directed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), to call for the records in C.C. No. 367 of 1991 on the file of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and to quash the same. The facts which are not in dispute are that the first petitioner is a company of which the second petitioner is the director. In lieu of a hire purchase arrangement a cheque was issued by the first petitioner for Rs. 5 lakhs on March 30, 1991, on the Karnataka Bank, Bombay. The same was presented for encashment on April 1, 1991, and the same bounced with an endorsement 'funds expected, present again'. The same re-presented again in the month of May 19, 1991, and on the second occasion too, it bounced with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. As such, having issued the statutory notice, the first respondent filed C.C. No. 367 of 1991 on the file of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under section 138 of ...
inuganti Venkata Ramana Murthy and ors. Vs. Tentu Sanyasi Naidu and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT197
ORDERM. Ranga Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 37/92 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili to quash the said proceedings against them on the ground that the same is barred by provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.2.The short point that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the complaint filed by the first respondent for offences under Sections 193, 196, 201, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioners under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.3. As it could be seen from Section 2(d) of Section 190 Cr.P.C. that general rule is that any person can set the law in motion by filing a complaint. Certain exemptions are, however, created by statutes. Section 195 and 198 Cr.P.C. are examples of such exemptions. Section 195 prohibits a court from taking cognizance of certain offences unless and until a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. This section does not lay down any rule of procedure. It only creates a bar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›