Andhra Pradesh Court September 1994 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.
theruvai Govindamma Vs. there Chenchaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)297; 1995CriLJ3121
ORDER1. This appeal is against the Order, 6-1-1994, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyavedu, dismissing the complaint, C.C. 102/1992, filed by the appellant-herein. The Order, dated 6-1-1994, passed by the learned Magistrate reads thus : 'Complainant called absent. A-1 present. There is no representation even after lunch. Therefore, complaint dismissed u/S. 256, Cr.P.C. and accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled'. 2. A perusal of the docket orders passed by the learned Magistrate discloses that from 21-9-1993 onwards, when the case was posted for trial, the complainant/appellant was present in the court on a number of occasions, though she was occasionally absent. On the relevant date, i.e., 6-1-1994, the complainant was called absent and the private complaint filed by her was dismissed. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, the reason for her absence before the lower court is that she resides at a distance of 30 mile...
Madhava Rao Gandhe and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Quili Qutubs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT175
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition arises under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Hithereto there was no time limit for passing the Award. But, by Amendament Act 68 of 1984, which came into effect from 24th September, 1984 Section 11A was incorporated in the Act, which obligates the acquisitioning authority to pass the Award within two years from the date of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. If the Award is not passed within two years as mentioned above, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act stands extinguished. But, there is one exception to the provision. If urgency clause is invoked, then Section 11Aof the Act will not operate.2. Ms. A.P. Lakshmi, the learned Counsel for the respondent, admits that no urgency clause was invoked and that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held and then only the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. As such, Section 11A of the Act o...
S. Veera Reddy and anr. Vs. Chetlapalli Chandraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT172
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The appellants in L.P.A. No. 61 of 1986 are respondents 3 and 4 in C.R.P. No. 665 of 1994 and the petitioners in the said C.R.P. are respondents 1,2 and 4 in the L.P.A.2. The subject matter of dispute in these two cases is the same. The controversy is about an extent of 9 acres of land in Survey No. 91 of Bowenpally village of Secunderabad. The said land was an inam land, which was abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (Act No. VIII of 1955), for short, 'the Inams abolition Act'. One Atchi Reddy was declared as a protected tenant of the said land under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. XXI of 1950), for short, 'the Tenancy Act'. Claiming to be transferees of the interest of the said protected tenant, Atchi Reddy, under a document said to have been executed by him on February 8,1963 (Ex.A.I) in favour of the appellants, they asserted to be in possession of the land. Re...
Kondaplli Seetharamyya Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT709; 1994(2)ALT(Cri)711; 1995CriLJ2169
N.D. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner, Sri Kondapalli Seetharamayya, who was accused in Crime No. 1 of 1993, Investigation Cell, Intelligence, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) and Section 8 of A.P. Public Security Act, was arrested on 20th March, 1993 at Anamanapudi village, Krishna district. Susbsequently he was produced before the designated Court, i.e. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and remanded to Judicial custody and is now lodged in the Central Jail, Musheerabad, Secunderabad. On 19-3-1994 a charge sheet was filed against him along with two others under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act and Section 8 of the A.P. Public Security Act in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which is the designated Court under the TADA Act. The designated Court had taken cognizance of the case and registered it as Sessions Case No. 130 of 1994 and made over to the IV Additional Sessions Ju...
The Advocate-general Vs. Sri S. Ramakrishna Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT387
M.N. Rao, J.1. This contempt case was filed by the Advocate General for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent herein - S. Ramakrishna Reddy, an Advocate of 32 years standing, practising at Siddipet in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh.2. On 22-6-1993, the respondent had submitted a 'memorandum of complaint' in the form of an affidavit to the Chief Justice of this Court making certain serious allegations against Sri K.V.L. Narasimharao, the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, casting aspersions against his integrity and impartiality in the discharge of judicial functions and requesting for proper1 action against the officer. The respondent had circulated a copy of the affidavit in advance to the members of the Bar Association, Siddipet. The respondent also submitted a written complaint to the District Judge, Medak on 21 -9-1993 alleging that after he submitted the affidavit to the Chief Justice complaining against the conduct of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, both t...
Ganesh Metal Processing Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1994
Reported in: 1995LC252(AP); 1996(81)ELT11(AP)
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. The Petitioners in all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are making a common prayer for directing the respondents to give them the benefit of exemption in respect of their re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.9.1993, and/or for quashing the impugned Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1.3.1994 of the 1st respondent, or in the alternative, for quashing the Notification No. 1/93 itself on the ground of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In W.P. No. 13614/94, a further prayer for quashing the adjudication Order No. 35/94 (C. No. V/72/3/54/94 VAL), dated 15.7.1994 made by the 3rd respondent has been made; whereas in W.P. No. 9663/94, an application (W.P. M.P. No. 15660/94) has been filed on 10.7.1994 with a prayer for permission to amend the prayer clause of the main petition on the basis of subsequent events, so as to include an additional...
Khaja MasihuddIn Vs. the Govt. of A.P. Through the Secretary to the Go ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT84
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh as a result of sabotage by extremists by putting undermine bomb blast.2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of a Jeep bearing registration No. APK 9284 which was later assigned a fresh No. AIF 3567 and that the same was run as a taxi-cab at Jagtiyal of Karimnagar District; that some persons have taken the vehicle for hire on 1-8-1989 to visit Beerpur village to attend the funeral of the Sarpanch of the said village who was slain by the extremists a day before. When the jeep reached the outskirts of Potharam village it was blasted by undermine blast, controlled by the remote control resulting in the smashing of the vehicle and the death of 15 persons who were the inmates thereof. Crime No. 16/89 Under Sections 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3 and 5 of TADA Act was registered in the designated Court.3. Here, we are not concerned with the prosecution aspect or death of the in ma...
Pheema Audiseshaiah Vs. Gopalam Venkata Krishnaiah (Died) Per L.Rs. an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT1
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. The question that was now argued after the second appeal was posted for rehearing was that in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the defendants are not entitled to raise the plea that the property was purchased by Shaik Ali in the year 1924 benami in the name of Abdul Khadar and the sale deed was nominally executed in the name of Abdul Khadar but the property was purchased for the benefit of Shaik Ali. The question whether the real owner of the property is entitled to plead the benami nature of transaction was considered by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1969 SC 1247. It was held that the Act is retrospective in operation. Therefore, in view of the said judgment the defendants are not entitled to plead that the property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff.2. In Duvuru Jaya Mohana Reddy v. Alluru Nagi Reddy, : AIR1994SC1647 the Supreme Court reiterated what they ...
Devarapalli Satyanarayana Vs. Sista Sanjeeva Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT122
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. The defendant-tenant is the appellant is this Second Appeal. He is challenging the judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the landlord for eviction and for other reliefs.2. The defendant-tenant took the suit premises on lease from the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. Though the tenancy was oral, it is now held by the Courts below as a fact that it is a month to month tenancy, commencing from 11-8-1985. Alleging that the defendant committed default in payment of rent, the palintiff-landlord issued quit notice, dated 17-3-1986, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy and calling upon the tenant to vacate and deliver the premises on or before 10-4-1986. Since the tenant-appellant has not complied with the demand made in the notice, the suit was filed.3. It is not necessary for us to go into the questions of fact as the relevant facts have been concluded by the findings of fact recorded by the Courts belo...
Smt. Shanta Bai Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT481
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. This is art appeal filed by the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted the suit O.S. NO. 247 of 1981 in the Court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiff had filed the suit against three defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to be the neighbours of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the District Collector of Hyderabad District.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule site admeasuring about 37 guntas with a house, water house, firewood shop, dhobi ghat and poles and ropes in S.No. 162 of Mallepally, Hyderabad known as 'Dhobi Ghat alias Shaukari Ghat alleging that the plaintiff's husband Ramachander and Gialal are the sons of Balram alias Tikkaram. Gialal died unmarried. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. She and her predecessors have been in possession of the property for more than 80 years.3. It is further averred by the plaintiff that one Ahmed Ali Mirz...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »