Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
The Chief Rationing Officer and anr. Vs. Jawahar Brothers G RaIn Merch ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT254
ORDERPrabha Shanker Mishra, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.2. We do not want to pre-judge any issue as learned single Judge, it appears, has been persuaded to do. It is a fit case, in our opinion, in which this Court should exercise the refrain that no order should be made in respect of a sized property or the validity of the seizure of a property which is effected in connection with a criminal offence and in respect of which a charge is preferred in the Court. The writ petitioner-respondent is a dealer in pulses, which is one of the essential commodities. It is said, such stock of pulses with him was seized and a panchanama was prepared. The panchanama was made the subject of challenge before this Court and the writ petitioner - respondent, ignoring the proceedings for prosecution or in the event of a report for confiscation of the seized commodity, moved this Court for quashing of the seizure and consequential release of the sei...
G. Sudershan Reddy and anr. Vs. Jeevan Latha Srivasthava and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT620
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These proceedings arise under Section 145 Cr .P.C. and the mistake is purely that of the Court of Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy and whoever was the Presiding Officer at that time he has to be blamed for the reason that had injunction been granted this problem would not have arisen and even if the injunction was refused,this problms would not have arisen. Having recorded that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner in I. A.No.513 /1993 in O.S.No.192/1993, the Court-below did not grant injunction positively, but only grantes status quo on 24-8-1993. Obviously, the lower Court did not want to state reasons either for grant of injunction or for grant of ex parte injunction orders which the statutory provision mandates and has taken recourse to the easy way of granting status quo, as no reasons need to be stated and the same can be ordered in a light-hearted fashion. Litigants approach the Court of law for resolving their disput...
Anam Premkumar Reddy and ors. Vs. India Fruits Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT170; [1996]85CompCas625(AP)
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J. 1. This is a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. According to the petition, the first petitioner is the son of the third respondent, and the other petitioners are the wife and children of the first petitioner. They are shareholders in the first respondent-company and the second respondent-company. The fourth respondent is the wife of the third respondent. The fifth respondent is the family trust set up by the third respondent. The first respondent-company had been functioning practically as a family concern, and in 1960 it set up a unit for manufacture of electrical conductors as a division under the name Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company which later became the second respondent-company. Another partnership firm called Godavari Electrical Conductors was set up and it purchased 4,436 out of 5,450 equity shares in the first respondent-company utilising a sum of Rs. 1.55 crores taken from the second respondent. The said loan was being repaid...
Smt. Madanamma Vs. the Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Chair ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT106
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer of O.S. No. 60 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kothagudem to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Asifabad in Adilabad District.2. It is stated that the said suit is one for declaration as to the legal heirs of the deceased Odelu who was said to be an employee of Singareni Collieries. Along with the petitioner, her two children are also parties to the said suit.3. Petitioner now contends that the cause of action has not arisen at Khammam and therefore, maintenance of the suit at Khammam is without jurisdiction and, necessarily the suit has to be transferred to the place where the petitioner is staying i.e., Asifabad, Adilabad District.4. It should be remembered that the suit is for a declaration to be the successor to late Odelu. When once a suit is filed for declaration as to be the successor, that suit could be filed by the party whereever he/she resides.5. Admittedly, respondents are residing at Khammam. Th...
Kedari Peda Achaiah Vs. Gunukula Jayabalamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT529
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. The 3rd defendant who suffered a decree for partition in O.S. No. 104/81 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam confirmed by the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A.S. No. 119/87 dated 15-6-1992 has filed the Second Appeal. For the purpose of disposal of this Second Appeal the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the sisters. The 3rd defendant is their eldest brother. The 2nd defendant is the daughter of the plaintiffs' eldest sister. The schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiffs' mother Kedari Narasamma. She executed a registered gift deed dated 21-1-1961 gifting the schedule property jointly in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 reserving the life interest therein. The said gift deed was executed in the presence of the plaintiffs, 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and his...
Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT514
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the (Indian) Arbitration Act. The defendants in O.S.No.444 of 1990 on the file of the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam are the appellants. The respondent filed the suit against the appellants for a direction to the appellants to file the original agreement dated 1-5-1989, entered into between the appellants and the respondents, and to refer the dispute between the parties to an impartial and independent arbitrator. By his judgment dated 18-3-1993 the learned I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam decreed the suit, which is now the subject matter of this miscellaneous appeal.2. The first appellant is a Government of India undertaking and the second appellant is its Managing Director. Under the Factories Act, the appellants are bound to maintain a canteen. For the purpose of running a canteen, the respondent entered into a contract with the appellants on 1-5-1989. It appears that while the respondent was runn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›