Andhra Pradesh Court March 1993 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.
The Tamarind Merchants Association, Rep. by Its President K. Jaggarao ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT696
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act XV of 1960 (in short the 'Act') the landlord is the petitioner. He challenged the validity of the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.A. No. 114 of 1981 dated 16-4-1984 as being illegal and unsustainable in law.2. The petitioner is an Association represented by its President. It owned the premises bearing Door No. 11-53-7 situate at Sobhanadri Street, Vijayawada. It is a two-storeyed building. The ground floor of the said building was let out to the respondent, who on the date of filing of the eviction petition was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 325/- p.m. The petitioner filed the eviction petition R.C.C. No. 5 of 1980 on the file of the learned Prl. District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Vijayawada on two grounds viz. (i) wilful default in payment of rent for the period commencing from 9-10-1977 to 8-11...
The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authorit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT116
ORDER1. This Full Bench has been constituted to consider mainly the question whether a fresh notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, referred to as 'L.A.Act') can be issued without withdrawing or cancelling the earlier notification which stood vitiated by the failure to publish its substance in the locality within the stipulated time. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that the earlier notification under Section 4(1) subsisted notwithstanding such failure and that the fresh notification could only be issued after the withdrawal of the earlier one under Section 48 of the L.A.Act. When the writ appeals filed against the common judgment came up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of Ramanujulu Naidu and Ranga Reddy, JJ., the learned Judges, after having referred to certain observations in two judgments of the Supreme Court felt that in view of the importance of the question, the cases are fit to be decided by a...
C. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. S. Aswarthanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT585
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The petitioner who is the respondent in I.A.No. 10/91 in A.T.C. 1/89 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif, Kamalapuram, is challenging o the order dated 7-4-1992 in this revision petition.2. The petitioner filed A.T.C. 1/89 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif, Kamalapuram for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from interfering with his possession over the petition-schedule land. The respondents engaged an advocate, but since the Advocate reported no instructions, the petition was allowed ex parte on 6-9-1991. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. As there was a delay of one year and nine months in filing the said application, they have also filed an application-I.A. 10/91 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-1991. The contention of the respondents h...
Universal Auto Garrage Vs. Chikoti Veeranna and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT746
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench against an order made by a single Judge on an interlocutory application in a second appeal2. The two-fold contentions advanced before us are:(1) Right of appeal being a statutory right cannot be rendered nugatory by a narrow interpretation of the statutory provisions in respect of appellate jurisdiction; and(2) An order made in an interlocutory application in a second appeal is not an order passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction but one made in exercise of the original jurisdiction and therefore, an appeal is maintainable to a Bench of two Judges.3. Before we answer this question, it is relevant to notice a few facts which led to the filing of the above Letters Patent Appeal.4. The appellant filed S.A. 388/91 questioning the decree and Judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad in A.S.263/87, reversing the decree ...
State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Karnati Kotaiah Na ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT473
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Plaintiff bank against the Judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 160 of 1979 dated 12-12-1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore.2. The State Bank of India, the appellant herein, filed a suit for recovery of amount on the basis of interest stipulated in the agreement that has been executed at the time of obtaining the loan. The interest that is being charged, admittedly is more than two and a half per cent than the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. The Lower Court framed certain issues and issue No. 1 reads as follows: 'whether the amount claimed in the suit is correct.'3. The lower Court relying upon the Judgment in Union Bank of India v. D. Koteswara Rao, 1979 (1) APLJ 87 which has been extracted below has found that the interest that has been charged is usurious. It held as follows:'Under Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, if the interest is excessive Court shall presume that the translation was substantially...
Lan Eseda Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR901(AP)
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J. 1. The first petitioner is a public limited company with about 75,000 shareholders and paid up share capital of Rs. 40.21 crores. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the first petitioner-company. The affairs of the company are managed by a board of five directors. On August 21, 1991, it was registered as a private limited company. It was converted into a public limited company on January 6, 1992. The latest accounting year of the company closed on November 30, 1992. The project cost of the company to manufacture steel castings is estimated to be Rs. 88 crores. The project is being set up at Gondia, Maharashtra, and is to be completed by the year 1994. The company had accounts in the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bombay, and Citibank, N. A. Nariman Point, Bombay. The company was authorised four person, including one Mr. Shyam Bhatia, who is neither a shareholder nor a director of the company, as authorised signatories to operate its bank accounts....
State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT186
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-8-1991 passed in LA. No. 380 of 1991 in OS. No. 378 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge's Court. Guntur, the present revision petition is filed.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed OS. No. 378 of 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,13,044/- together with interest and costs from respondents- defendants 1 to 5. The Court below decreed the suit as against defendants 1 to 3 and 5 with interest and costs while dismissing the suit as against defendant No. 4 with costs. On the basis of the Judgment and decree., the learned counsel for 4th respondent-defendant filed a fee memo claiming Rs. 47,280/- Aggrieved by the said fee Memo I. A.No. 380/91 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the decree in respect of costs of Rs. 47,280/- towards the claim filed by the counsel for the 4th respondent defendant. The ground urged by the petitioner-plaint...
State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Anup Singh Sundarl ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT705
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-8-1991 passed in I.A.No. 380 of 1991 in O.S.No. 378 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge's court, Guntur, the present revision petition is filed.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed O.S.No. 378 6f 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,13,044/- together with interest and costs from respondents- defendants 1 to 5. The Court below decreed the suit as against defendants 1 to 3 and 5 with interest and costs while dismissing the suit as against defendant No. 4 with costs. On the basis of the judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-defendant filed a fee memo claiming Rs. 47, 280/-. Aggrieved by the said fee memo, I.A.No. 380/91 was filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the decree in respect of costs of Rs. 47,280/- towards the claim filed by the counsel for the 4th respondent-defendant. The ground urged by the petitioner-...
The Superintendent of Police and ors. Vs. Dwarapudi Rami Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT237
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, who are respondents in MATOP No. 482 of 1988, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, challenging the order dt.30-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khammam, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,30,856 in favour of the respondent herein (claim petitioner) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and also awarding proportionate costs of Rs. 14,430/-.2. Before entering into a debate on the controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case to high light the issue on hand. On 30-3-1988 the claim-petitioner, in the course of his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles, had gone to Chintoor and was standing on the extreme left side of the road at the bus stop at about 10-30 a.m. At t...
Fotolite Colour Labs, a Registered Partnership Concern, Rep. by One of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT343
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 496 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The case of the petitioner is that the above suit was instituted against the respondents-defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,80,271 /- being the amount paid to the respondents-defendants and to their technicians for the supply of original Italian made Durst - 502 High Speed Substractive Printer equipment and its installation at petitioner's colour laboratory at Visakhapatnam. Suit notices were directed to the respondents-defendants through Court as well as by registered post acknowledgement due. Though suit notices were served on the respondents-defendants, which were sent through RP AD, none appeared on their behalf on 27-2-1991, on which date the suit stood posted for their appearance. Therefore, the Court, satisfying itself on the service of notices, set the respondents-defendants ex parte on 27-2-1991 and posted the matter on 28-2-19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »