Andhra Pradesh Court November 1996 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.
V. Ramesh Vs. Convenor, Eamcet - 1995, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP79; 1997(1)ALT569
ORDERP. S. Mishra, C.J.1. The petitioner-appellant, who, it is not in dispute, is entitled to admission in any of the Engineering Colleges of the State on a reserved seat for N.C.C. 'C' candidates, has failed to take the benefit for, according to him, he was not informed that he was required to report on 15-10-1995 for such admission. He has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and sought a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not giving admission to him and providing seat accordingly as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant applied for entrance examination for admission to the Engineering course and secured the rank of 16413 in the entrance examination. As a holder of N.C.C. 'C' Certificate, however, he qualified for being given a seat, but, according to him, he received no intimation to the said effect. He came, however, to le...
Pidathala Bala Venkataswamy Vs. V.V. Nagalakshmi Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT650
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in OP. No. 123 of 1989 dated 22-3-1990 is challenged by the claimant who lodged a claim under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short the Act) claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- but succeeding only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The basis of the claim was the personal injury said to have been suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 5-3-1989 and which is found to be due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry AAO 3492, the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.3. Only the adequacy of the compensation under the award is challenged. Barring the contention of Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the limit of the insurance company cannot exceed Rs. 1,50,000/-, no other finding of the Tribunal is called in question.4. Accepting the case of the claimant that he suffered serio...
Shaik Omer BIn Ali Umodi Rep. by His Gpa Habeeb BIn Omer Umodi Vs. Sye ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT560
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant in the suit against the order passed by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court allowing the amendment of plaint by the plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 8 herein.2. The suit - O.S. No.3238 of 1979 was filed seeking permanent injunction against the 1st (sic.2nd) defendant (Municipal Corporation) restraining demolition of the building and for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to construct house over the suit land and for permanently restraining the 2nd defendant from raising any objection. By means of the amendment petition, the 1st respondent-plaintiff wants to add the relief of declaration that the plaintiff shall be declared as owner, possessor and occupier of the suit plot in Sy. No. 187/1 ad measuring 215 sq. yards situate at Talab Chanchalam, Imambada in Ward No. 17, Block No. 3, Hyderabad. The suit which was filed 17 years back was dismissed for default in the year 1984.3. This Cou...
Durbhaka Venkata Subramanya Sarma and anr. Vs. State Bank of India, Ba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1028
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order passed in E.P.No. 66/88 in O.S. No. 172/71 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nandyal.2. The Bank filed the Suit for recovery of the amount. It was decreed. The decree is dated 7-2-1972. The Judgment-debtors did not prefer any appeal. However, they preferred A. A.O.No. 326/73 on the file of the High Court. While dismissing the said A.A.O., the High Court directed the Judgment-debtors to pay the amount in instalments. The first instalment was to be paid on or before 31-5-1976. The High Court's order is dated 5-4-1976. Again, the judgment- debtors filed C.R.P.No. 1569/76 to extend the time for payment of the first instalment. The High Court, by its order dated 15-7-1976, extended the time for payment of the first instalment upto 31-8-1976. However, the Judgment- debtors did not pay the amount within the time granted. The Decree-holder also did not file any E.P. until 24-3-1988, seeking reliefs against the person and propert...
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by District Collector Vs. Tube, Tools and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT721
ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A. No. 1043/1990 and I.A. No. 1124/1990 in unregistered A.S. on the file of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 14-12-1990.2. The facts leading to this Revision Petition in brief are :The revision petitioner suffered decree in O.S. No. 711/1985 on the file of the IV Addl. District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, in favour of the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree stated above, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam. As there was delay in filing the appeal, he sought for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A. No. 1023/1990. He also filed another petition, I.A. No. 1043/ 1990 under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C. seeking stay at execution in E.P. No. 304/1990 in O.S. No. 711/1985 on the file of the IV Add1. District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The learned Judge granted conditional interim stay pending disposal of the appeal....
Nalajala Jagannadham Vs. Veerepally Mangamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT725
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Munsif of Kodada in LA. No. 125/96 in O.S.No. 34/92 on an application filed by the petitioner Under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act wherein the District Munsif refused to forward the document in question to the R.D.O. for impounding and levied ten times penalty under the impression, that this Court directed him to do so while disposing of CRP No. 3769/95 dated 28-12-1995, the present Revision Petition is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 2-00 of land for a consideration of Rs. 64,000/- tinder an agreement of sale executed on five rupee stamp paper on 28-5-1989 from one Nalajala Tulisamma. But the vendor without executing a regular sale deed filed O.S. No. 877/89 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodada for a permanent injunction and failed to get a temporary injunction. In those circumstances, the vendor executed a registered sale deed in favour of the res...
Allani Lingaiah Vs. Paidimarri Sathya Babu, Sarpanch and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT805
ORDERS. Dasaratharama Reddy, J.1. Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed suit - O.S. No. 43 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Kodad, Nalgonda district, against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,600/- contending that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 7,440/- and Rs. 5000/- from the second respondent under two different pronotes and paid only Rs. 3,300/- and that the respondent No. 1 was holder in due course. During the course of trial, when the first respondent wanted to mark the documents, the petitioner took objection stating that as the documents are not stamped, they are not admissible in evidence. The Court below held that these two documents are promissory notes and directed the first respondent-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on them. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up with this revision.2. Mr. M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the two documents being pronotes cannot be admitted in evi...
B. Srinivasa Rao Vs. the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas600b(AP); (1997)1CompLJ432(AP)
1. Heard. The appeal, in our view, is not maintainable at all, as learned single Judge, after recording smoke preliminary findings, has held that all adjudications would be possible after final order is passed by the first respondent herein. 2. The appeal is dismissed....
In Re: Sps Pharma Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas774(AP)
S. Dasaradharama Reddy, J.1. These petitions are filed by SPS Pharama Ltd. (transferor company) and Targof Pure Drugs Ltd. (transferee company) for approval of amalgamation of the former with the latter. Both the companies are formed for the purpose for manufacture and sale of bulk drugs and pharmaceutical formulations. The former is proposed to be amalgamated with the latter so that combined operation may be carried out more efficiently, economically leading to wider capital base. As per the scheme, from the effective date March 8, 1995, all debts and liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor company stand transferred to the transferee company. All the officers and employees of the transferor company shall be deemed to have become officers and employees of the transferee company. 2. Accordingly, meetings of the shareholders of the two companies were directed to be conducted. The chairpersons have filed reports stating that the scheme has been approved by the shareholders o...
Sri Venkateswara Hybrid Seeds Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]106STC34(AP)
M.N. Rao, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1986-1987 the following two turnovers : 1. Inter-State sale of hybrid jawar seed... Rs. 18,728 at 4%not covered by declaration in form C.2. Inter-State sales of cotton-seed not... Rs. 72,376 at 8%covered by 'C' declarations. were brought to tax under the Central Sales Tax, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act') by the assessing officer rejecting the contention of the assessee that under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, it is entitled to exemption. The case of the assessee was that by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 604, Revenue(S), dated April 9, 1981, when once exemption was granted in respect of the above turnovers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the APGST Act') the assessing officer had no power to hold that the dealer was not entitled to exemption under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. The assessing officer was of the opinion that G.O.Ms. No. 604, Revenue(S), dated April 9, 1981 is not of a general nature but a conditiona...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »