Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
H.K. Eranna Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, National Textiles ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT383
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. In the present Writ Petition the orders passed by the 3rd respondent/management dated: 15-4-1991 discharging the petitioner from service are assailed.2. Originally, there existed Adoni Cotton Mills at Adoni. The petitioner worked in the said Mills from 1957 to 1966. However, the said Milt was closed and subsequently it was taken over by the National Textiles Corporation, a Govt. of India Undertaking and it started functioning in the name and style of Ananthapur Cotton Mills from 1976. On 18-4-1981, the petitioner was discharged from the service and the said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No. 4591 of 1981 and the same was dismissed on 10-3-1983. However, the Appeal filed by the petitioner in W.A.No. was allowed on 24-6-1987. The Special Leave Petition filed by the management was also dismissed. Therefore, finally, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 2-8-1988. While so, he was transfered to Ananthapur Unit on 9-6-1989. It is the case of ...
P. Saraswathi Vs. Sri Rajana Appalanaidu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT915
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-3-1982 rendered by the Court of the Subordinate judge, Vizianagaram in Original Suit No. 3 of 1981.2. Plaintiff is the appellant and I refer the parties as arrayed in the Suit. The Suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 16,317/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 8-12-1973 (Ex.A-1). The amount lent was Rs. 11,000/-. The plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum.3. The defendants had contested the suit denying the liability on the ground of bar of limitation and also alternative for scaling down the interest as they were agriculturists.4. The following triable issues were framed:(i) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount?(ii) Whether the suit amount is not correct?(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?(iv) Whether the defendants are not liable for costs of the suit?(v) Whether the suit is not maintainable?(vi) Whether the...
D. Mutyalu Vs. G. Kanakam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT291
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This revision arises out of an order dated 23-2-1994 made in I.A.No. 1896 of 1993 in O.S.No. 26 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. The said application was filed by the plaintiff praying the Court to record a finding that the revision petitioner-defendant is not entitled to adduce any evidence in support of his plea of benami transaction as per Ex.B-1 in view of the statutory prohibition contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, for short 'the Act. The said application is allowed by the Court below by the order under revision. Few facts which are relevant to be noted for the purpose of disposal of this Civil Revision Petition be stated briefly as under:The respondent herein is the plaintiff. She filed the said suit O.S.No. 26 of 1984 in the Court below for a declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule house property. Earlier to the filing of the suit in the year 1984 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›