Andhra Pradesh Court July 1995 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.
Smt. K. Prabhavathi and ors. Vs. the Deputy Divisional Manager, Syndic ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT716
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. Common questions of law and that of facts do arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. Therefore all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in these eight writ petitions are all employees of the respondent-Syndicate Bank serving in the clerical cadres in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners in all tine writ petitions except the petitioner in W.P.No. 11207/95 are female employees. In these writ petitions the transfer orders issued by the Management of the respondent bank in the month of June, 1995 transferring the petitioners outside the zone/districts are called in question. Before the impugned transfer orders were issued the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 11132,11133 and 11135 of 1995 were working in the branches of the bank situated in Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners in W.P.No.11912 of 1995 were working in the branches of the bank situate at Visakhapatnam and by the impugned o...
Malla Venkataswamy Mandadi and anr. Vs. Sreepuram Munemma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT92
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This is a second appeal by Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No. 493/74 on the file of the District Munsif, Srikalahasti. The suit Was filed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 5-00 of land, more specifically described in the schedule. The Plaintiff's case before the trial court, was that she purchased the land for valuable consideration. By the side of the scheduled property, defendants 1 to 4 also pruchased Ac. 20-00 of land at the rate of Ac.5-00 each. Though they have no right or title in the land purchased by the Plaintiff, they were attempting to interfere with the same. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff. Evidence let in and the suit was dismissed, against which an appeal in A.S.No. 101/85 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasthi.2. During the pendency of appeal, defendants 1 and 2 passed away. No application under Order 22, Rule 4 was filed to bring their Legal representatives on record. Lower a...
Ciscons Consulting Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Vijayawada Munici ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT1; 1996(1)ARBLR552(AP)
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. The respondent in O.P. No. 171 of 1989 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada questions his order dated 26.7.1994 permitting the petitioner therein to let in evidence and rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that the matter should be decided on affidavits in view of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, ('the Act' for short). 2. Original Petition No. 347 of 1985 was preferred for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator on the grounds raised in that petition. After counter were filed therein, the matter was posted for enquiry and it was at that stage, that the learned counsel for the petitioner therein (respondent in the present C.R.P.) wanted to adduce evidence in support of the averments in that petition, and objection to that was raised relying on Section 33 of the Act that the questions involved in the O.P. should be decided on affidavits; and as already stated above that objection was rejected by...
Gandepalli Samudralu Vs. Penugonda Satyavathi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT51
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 7-10-1987 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Visakhapatnam in R. CA. No. 18 of 1983 confirming the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller in R.C.C.No. 67 of 1978 date 16-9-1983.2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition may be summarised thus One Penugonda Sarvaji, the original landlord (the respondents herein are his Legal Representatives), filed R.C.C. 67 of 1978 against the petitioner (tenant) in the Court of 'the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam under Section 10 (3) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for his eviction on the ground that he was carrying on business in fancy goods in rented premises and he has two major sons and hence he bona fide required the disputed accommodation for carrying on the said business. The...
Machilipatnam Municipality Rep. by Its Commissioner Vs. Inampudi Laksh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT29
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 113/86 dated 2-2-1993 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, setting aside the decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 50/79, dated 29-9-1986 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Machilipatnam, dismissing the suit with costs. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The Plaintiff filed suit for declaration that the notice No.B. A.425 / 75 dated 1-2-1979 issued by the first defendant as illegal and unenforceable and also for declaration that the G.O. Rt. No. 42, MA. dated 10-1-1979, as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from implementing the notice dated 1-2-1979.3. The averments of the plaint, in nut-shell are, that the plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing No. 17/392, Buttaipet, Machilipatnam, having p...
Panyam Cements and Mineral Industries Limited Vs. State of Andhra Prad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: [1996]100STC263(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. On interpretation of statutes the dicta of Parke B, which is oft quoted, is : (Extracted from the book - 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes', Twelfth Edition, Fourth Impression (1981) by p. St. J. Jangan at page 43.) 'It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the Legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further.' 2. It is the application of the above principle that is called for in this revision which is directed at the instance of the assessee-dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated August 17, 1987, made in Tribunal Appeal No. 16 of 1983. 3. The question raised in this revision relates to interpretation of s...
G. Sarangapani Vs. H. Kanakaiah (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT617
ORDERY.V. Narayana, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 30-7-1993 in O.S.No.121 of 1984 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal by the plaintiff on the ground that the order of the Court below is illegal and contrary to law.2. Necessary facts of the case in brief are as under: The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share. In support of his case during trial he summoned P.W.2 Paka Komuraiah as his witness. While giving evidence P.W.2 sought to exhibit a document dated 18-2-1980 for which the learned Counsel for the second defendant took objection on the ground that the said document is a partition deed, but not a document reciting past partition and therefore it is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration. The lower Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for both sides, held that the recitals of the document clearly show th...
Nasreen Jahan Begum and anr. Vs. Syed Mohammed Alamder Ali Abedi and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALD10; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)319; 1995(2)APLJ242; 1996CriLJ564
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment delivered by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad in Criminal R.P. No. 58 of 1993 dated 4-5-1993 reversing the judgment of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in M.C. No. 7 of 1983, dated 19-10-1984. 2. There is a chequered history for this case. The first petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent were married on 13-1-1982 according to Muslim rites. The 2nd petitioner was born to them out of the said wedlock on 10-12-1982. After the marriage, the relations between them got strained as the 1st respondent was having illicit intimacy with one Parveen Jaffery. The 1st petitioner along with her child - 2nd petitioner was forced to live in her parents house. On 21-2-1983, she had instituted M.C. No. 7 of 1983 on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for maintenance. The 1st respondent filed counter on 26-4-1983 denying ...
T. Surya Prakash Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collier ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT839; (1996)ILLJ1009AP
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. This writ petition challenges Rule 24.4 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1989 of the respondent-Company, as unconstitutional. The rule reads as follows : 24.4 During the period of suspension the employee shall not enter the work-place/office premises except with the written permission of the suspending authority or any other authority competent to give such permission, nor shall he/she leave station without the written permission of the competent authority. No leave shall be granted during the period of suspension. The petitioner was working as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in the respondent-Company when he was suspended by order dated 29-12-1992 pending inquiry into certain irregularities for which charges were framed by letter dated 27-4-1993. In the letter of suspension, his headquarters was fixed at Ramakrishnapuram. The petitioner states that all the facilities available to an employee on duty at Ramakrishnapuram such as gun-man, watchman, con...
Sahira Banu Vs. Shaik Basheer Ahmed and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)268; I(1996)DMC382
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This revision arises out of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband i.e. the 1st respondent herein. On the ground of neglect, the petitioner instituted M.C No. 4/91 against the 1st respondent for maintenance and at an earlier point of time, the 1st respondent tried to pre-empt the said proceedings by filing quash proceedings before this Court in Crl. P. No. 1333/91, but the same was dismissed by order dated 30.1.1992 on the ground that the allegations made by him that the petitioner was divorced have got to be enquired into and that the maintenance proceedings cannot be interdicted. So saying, the petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed. In consequent of the same, enquiry had to held by the Court of the Magistrate, but the 1st respondence though had filed counter, had been protracting the litigation. Again, he had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 16/93 before the Court of Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »