Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Pagadala Narasimham Vs. the Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ741; AIR1994AP21
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as an indigent person. The said suit O.S. No. 30/ 80 (on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nellore) was filed claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- against the defendants 1 and 2 viz., the Commissioner and Special Officer of Nellore Municipality and the Superintendent of Police, Nellore. The 3rd defendant, viz., the Nellore Finance Corporation was impleaded later on and it is not a party in this appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of the Bus APA 8230, and while it was kept for repairs near the work-shop at Santi Reddy Road, Nellore, the Municipal and the police officials, removed the same on the evening of 14-7-76 on the ground that it was causing obstruction on the public road and kept it in the compound of the Collectorate building near Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that when he approach...
P. Rajulu Goud and Others Vs. P. Jeevan Kumar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1994AP152; 1994(1)ALT508
1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein against the appellants. The 4th plaintiff (R4 in the appeal) is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 (Rl to R3) who are minor sons. The 1st appellant (Dl in the suit) is the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of 4th plaintiff. The 2nd appellant (D2 in the suit) is the mother of the 1st appellant. The other two appellants are the brothers of the 1st appellant and they are D3 and D4 in the suit. The suit is for partition of the properties in plaint A, B and C schedules. 'A' schedule is a house constructed with the site purchased by the father of D-l late Sri Sattaiah Goud and in which he and his sons' families were living till his death in 1976. In that, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed 4/5th share out of l/4th share held by the 1st defendant. 'B' schedule is also a house. It was constructed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs have claimed 4/5th share therein. 'C' schedule is the business of the 'Kirana S...
K. Appa Rao and ors. Vs. Sarkar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas670(AP)
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. This petition is filed under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order winding up the respondent-company. The four petitioners are the creditors of the company. The authorised share capital and paid-up share capital of the company are Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 5,35,000, respectively. The shares are of the value of Rs. 100 each. It is stated that the company owes large amounts of monies to the mother of the first petitioner and the three other petitioners. 2. According to the averments in the petition, the mother of the first petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 28,000 consisting of Rs. 5,500 on October 28, 1986; Rs. 9,500 on November 22, 1986, Rs. 2,000 on December 26, 1986, Rs. 4,000 on January 10, 1987, and Rs. 7,000 on February 5, 1987, with the company. Sri C. Ramachandra Rao describing himself as the managing director of the company had executed receipts on behalf of the company evidencing those deposits, bearing receipts Nos....
Vallabhaneni Ratnakumari and anr. Vs. Katta Subbaravamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT464; 1993(3)ALT464; [1994(68)FLR1048]; (1994)IILLJ81AP; (1994)IILLJ81SC
M.N. Rao, J. 1. This civil revision petition is against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Machilipatnam in I. A. No. 1560 of 1991 in S. C. No. 94 of 1991 directing conditional attachment of an amount of Rs. 4,000/- out of the General Insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- standing in the name of Vallabhaneni Satyanarayana, the defendant in the suit, who died during the pendency of the suit and whose legal representatives are his wife and son, the petitioners herein. 2. Alleging that the deceased Satyanarayana was an employee of the Andhra Scientific Company at Machilipatnam, the successor of which is the Bharat Electronic Limited (BEL), and that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by executing a promissory-note on 2-2-1988 for meeting his family expenses but paid only Rs. 500/- and had not repaid the balance, the suit was laid by the respondent herein (Katta Subbaravamma). An Interlocutory Application, I. A. No. 1560/1991, under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. was filed s...
M. Lakshminarayana Vs. M. Jagannadha Reddy (Died) Through L.R., Raj Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT162
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. This revision petition filed by the landlord is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Medak acting as the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in R.C.A. No. 1 of 1991 affirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Medak in I.A.No. 490 of 1990 in R.C. No. 6 of 1981 rejecting permission for the landlord for leave to appoint a General Power of Attorney Holder, to conduct proceedings on his behalf.2. R.C. No. 6 of 1981 was instituted by the General Power of Attorney of the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant-respondent herein. The matter was pending for one decade and in the year 1991 when arguments were being heard, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondent-tenant that the General Power of Attorney-holder did not obtain leave of the Court for presenting R.C. No. 6 of 1981. At that stage, an application was filed I.A. No. 4...
Chava Seethamma and ors. Vs. Kolaguntla Malakonda Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT182
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet in I.A.-No. 591 of 1991 in O.S.No. 173 of 1988 scoring out the evidence of D.W.1 under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code').2. The suit, O.S.No. 173 of 1988, was instituted for recovery of possession in respect of the plaint schedule land. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S.No. 141 of 1988, was instituted by the present petitioners in respect of the same land seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-plaintiffs in O.S.No. 173 of 1988. After the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses was over in O.S.No. 173 of 1988, the third defendant came forward to give evidence as D.W.1 without obtaining the permission of the Court. Before his evidence could be completed1, an interlocutory application, I.A.No. 591 of 1991, was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to exclude his evidence from consideration ...
Bhasker Finance and Commercial Syndicate Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT627
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The substantial question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short the Act) requires that the partner of the firm, who files the suit on behalf of the firm, should be shown as partner in the Register of Firms.2. Appellant is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 559 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Anantapur. It is a registered firm represented by its Managing Partner Thippaiah. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,300/- on the foot of a promissory note, Ex. A-1, said to have been executed by the first defendant in the suit on obtaining a loan of Rs. 4,000/-. The plaintiff further stated that on 28-9-1973 a sum of Rs. 10/- was paid under Ex. A-2. The defendants denied the execution of the promissory note and contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They also contended that the person who purports to be the Managing Partner, was not a ...
Pagadala Narasimham Vs. Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore Muni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC31
P.V. Reddi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as an indigent person. The said suit O.S. No. 30 of 1980 (on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nellore) was filed claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, viz., the Commissioner and Special Officer of Nellore Municipality and the Superintendent of Police, Nellore. The 3rd defendant, viz., the Nellore Finance Corporation was impleaded later on and it is not a party in this appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of the bus APA 8320 and while it was kept for repairs near the workshop at Santi Reddy Road, Nellore, the Municipal and the Police Officials removed the same on the evening of 14.7.1976 on the ground that it was causing obstruction on the public road and kept it in the compound of the Collectorate Building near the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. It is the case of the plain...
Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. J. Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994AP90; 1993(3)ALT446
ORDER1. Civil revision petition No. 3549/1992 is directed against the order of the learned Second Additonai District Munsif, Vijayawada in I.A. No. 613 of 1992 in O.S. No. 1263 of 1987 allowing the application of the defendant for sending the suit promissory note to a private expert for determining the age of the ink used by the attestor and the scribe in the suit promissory note.2. Although no reasons are given in the order impugned in this revision, evidently the same reasons given by the learned District Munsif on an identical application filed earlier LA. No. 1452 of 1991 which was allowed on 24-1-1992 weighed with him in allowing the present application. In the circumstances, it is necessary to refer to the earlier application for the purpose of ascertaining the reasons.3. The suit itself was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the strength of a promissory note, ex.A1 dated 11-6-1983 alleged to have been executed by the defendant for Rs. 16,300/-. The defendant in his written sta...
Shaheen Zainab Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT574; 1993CriLJ3318
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by accused No. 31 in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1993, which is a case filed under some sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosives Substances Act, read with Ss. 3(1)(3) and 4 to 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA Act'). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no accusation at all against the petitioner either of having committed an offence or having abetted the commission of any offence and that in the absence of an accusation either of committing an offence or having abetted the commission of such offence, the designated Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely because the District Magistrate has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act, the designated Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »