Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Dr. Bajji Prabhakar Vs. University of Health Sciences and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT184
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner is an applicant for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Course in Dr. B.R.K.R. Ayurvedic Medical College, Hyderabad for the year 1992-93. He obtained Rank No. 12. He filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide a seat to the petitioner in M.D. Kayachikitsa Speciality (K.C.) or S.S.P. Speciality. However, in the course of arguments, the petitioner confined his claim to Dravyaguna Speciality of M.D. Ayurveda and submits that the action of the respondents in not allotting him a seat is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner belongs to the local area of Osmania University. In Dravyaguna, there are six seats out of which three are reserved for candidates from different States. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that the reservation on the basis of caste and local area is not applicable where the available seats do not exceed three. The statement in the counter is based on the first proviso to paragraph 6 ...
Vadalasetti Samrajyamma Vs. Vadalasetti Nagamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994AP13; I(1994)DMC1
ORDER1. The husband of the respondent filed OP No. 30/ 86 for dissolution ofhis marriage with the respondent under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 ('the Act', for short). The petition was decreed ex parte on 11-7-1988. The petitioner (respondent?) filed IA No. 870/ 88 to set aside the ex parte decree. Subsequently, the husband of the respondent died on 11-2-1989, leaving behind his mother, the petitioner herein, as the only heir. The respondent filed IA No. 712/89 under O.22, R.4(c) and S. 151, C.P.C. to implead the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased in IA No. 870/ 88. The learned Judge allowed the application, giving rise to this revision.2. Sri Y. K. Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that proceedings under S. 13 of the Act are personal in nature and they stand abated with the death of one of the spouses and no legal representatives of the deceased can be im-pleaded for continuing the proceedings. He further submitted that O.22, R.4,...
Indian Association of Lawyers (Andhra Pradesh Chapter) Vs. the Princip ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)528; 1994CriLJ533
S. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed in public interest by the Indian Association of Lawyers (A.P. Chapter), represented by its General Seceatary, Sri C. Damodar Reddy, an advocate. In the affidavit given in support of the Writ Petition, Sri C. Damodar Reddy states that nine life convicts named in the Schedule are under-going their sentence in the Central Jail, Warangal even though they are entitled to be released as per G.O.Ms. No. 580, Home (Prisons-C) Department dated 20-10-1984. 2. When this writ petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us i.e., M. N. Rao, J., was a party, Sri Ravinder Rao, the learned counsel representing the learned Advocate General, contended that the said nine prisoners were not released because the said G.O.Ms. No. 580 was not attracted to them, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 1 APLJ 361 : (1985 Cri LJ 1679). The Division Bench observed that this Court in Ramul...
Komalla Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ37
ORDER1. A-1 to A-7 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rs. One hundred only) each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four weeks. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Prosecution case is that on the night intervening 13-5-1989 and 14-5-1989 at 2.30 a.m., A-1 to A-7 trespassed into the premises of 5th Shaft of S.C. Company at Rudravaram. They were armed with hammers and knives and they caused hurt to P.W. 1, the watchman, and P.W. 2, the Security Guard, and they, after beating P.Ws. 1 to 5, locked them up in the overmen's room. One of them stood guard at the entrance of the overmen's room. The other accused broke open to store room and committed theft of materials worth Rs. 22,250/-. On 22-5-1989 P.W. 15, the Inspector of Police. Kothagudem, is said t...
Mir Jaffer Ali Vs. Syed Rabbani and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT554
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. The plaintiff filed this revision against the order of the lower Court dated 1-3-1993 in unregistered O.S. in C.F.R.No. 90 of 1993.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed the suit for confirmation of possession and injunction of the suit land claiming that he is in possession of the land and others are trying to interfere. He paid the Court fee under the residuary provision i.e., under Section 47 (iv) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the Act VII of 1956). The office of the Lower Court has taken objection that the suit has to be valued under Section 24 (b) of tine Act VII of 1956 and the valuation made by the plaintiff and Court fee paid under Section 47(iv) of the Act VII of 1956 is not correct and returned the bundle for payment of proper Court fee. Then the matter came up before the lower Court and the lower Court passed the order under revision that there is no mere relief of confirmation of poss...
Syed G. Allabakshu Vs. Daram Chenchi Reddi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT58; 1994(1)ALT(Cri)374
ORDERG. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal in S.T.C. No. 10/89 passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli dated 12-10-1990.2. The learned Magistrate passed the following order:'The case was called on for hearing to-day to which it had been adjourned. The complainant not being present either in person or by pleader the accused be acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C.'3. As pointed out in Signion Systems v. Keonics Magnavision Computers, 1990 (2) APLJ 483 this Court held that the High Court in an appeal filed is entitled to go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for the absence of the complainant and set aside the order of acquittal. But, in that judgment it has not considered what is the effect of the absence of the Advocate and the complainant also. When a complaint is filed, the complainant is expected to be present irrespective of the fact whether the matter is posted for appearance of the accused or...