Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
K. Abdul Gafoor Vs. High Court of A.P., Rep. by Its Registrar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT368
ORDERG. Bikshapathi, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed for quashing the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent dated: 3-6-1988 as confirmed by the 1st respondent dated 7-2-1992.2. The facts relevant to. the case are that the petitioner was working as Bench Clerk No. 2 in Criminal Section in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Yemmiganoor. He worked in the said capacity from 7-12-1983 to 7-12-1986. Thereafter he was transferred to the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Atmakur. While so, he was kept under suspension pending enquiry by the 2nd respondent and thereafter appointed the Subordinate Judge, Adoni as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 12-8-1987. the Enquiry Officer framed two charges against the petitioner. I will refer to the details of the charges at a later stage. Four witnesses were examined in support of the charges while one witness was examined on behalf of the employee. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of receiving the amount unauthorisedly....
S. Indira and anr. Vs. Netyam Venkataramana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1080
S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.1. One Thippanna filed suit O.S.No. 43 of 1968 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ananthapur, against the appellant, for specific performance of the agreement dated 8-4-1965 (Ex. A-4) for sale of agricultural lands measuring Ac. 20-60 cents for Rs. 20,500/-. He paid Rs. 1,000/- towards advance. The suit was filed on 8-4-1968 with a Court Fee of Rs. 24/- and the deficit Court Fee of Rs 1,402/- was paid on 11-4-1968. Pending suit, the plaintiff died and the respondents herein were brought on record as his legal representatives. As per the terms of the agreement, after the balance of the consideration is paid, the defendant has to execute the registered sale deed. As the defendant was postponing the registration of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 24-8-1965 (Ex. A-1) informing that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was ready to take the sale deed paying the balance consideration. The defendant repli...
A. Ramalakshmi Sethu Rao (Died) and ors. Vs. D. Bheemeshwara Rao and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT1026
S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.1. This appeal which was earlier dismissed on 24-11-1992 was reopened on 1-10-1993 on the ground that it was earlier disposed of without notice to all the legal representatives of the 1st appellant. The appellants 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.1067/88 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein for specific performance of contract of sale dated 29-12-1975 (Ex.A-2) by directing the defendants 1 and 2 execute the sale deeds in the name of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, and put them in possession of the plots 1, 2 and 3. Pending suit one Gopinath Sidhanti, 4th respondent herein was added as 4th plaintiff who was the nominee of Plaintiff No. 2, while Defendant No. 3 who was the other party to the Ex.A-2 and who is respondent No. 5 herein was given up as no necessary party to the appeal.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated thus:On 10-11-1975, t...
Kundarapu Pavitra Devi Vs. the District Collector and District Magistr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALD380; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)259; 1996(2)ALT304; 1996CriLJ4061
M.N. RAO, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Kundarapu Pavitra Devi, is challenging the order of detention passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Karimnagar, the first respondent, on 4-3-1996 under S. 3(2)(a) read with S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act) by which her husband, K. Damodar, a resident of Warangal Town, was detained for indulging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of kerosene oil, a commodity essential to the community, by diverting subsidised kerosene oil meant for supplies in Karimnagar and Warangal Districts under the public distribution system for sale in blackmarket and thereby contravened Clause 3(i) of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling on Prices) Order and Clauses 3(i), 12(1)(ii) and (iii) and 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. The grounds of detention d...
S. Rangaiah and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT531
1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the remand made by the Collector of Medak at Sangareddy for enquiry to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak relating to the validity of the claims of the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the appellants of both the appeals to the disputed lands. The facts relating to the cases are rather complex having undergone series of litigations including coming to this Court twice or thrice, for which it is necessary, for dear appreciation, to adumbrate those. Admittedly, the appellants in W.A. No. 847/93 and the respondents in that appeal, who are the respondents 3 to 7 in W.A.No. 1028/93, are claiming the land through one Surabhi Narasa Goud. The appellants in W.A.No. 1028/93 is claiming the lands through the original Inamdar of the land. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in W.A. No. 847/93 are referred in this judgment as appellants and the respondents 4 to 8 ...
K. Narsing and ors. Vs. the Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALD(Cri)601; 1996(2)ALT884
ORDERV. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 2-2-1994 in L.G.A. No. 40 of 1993 on the file of the 1st respondent-Special Court constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short, 'the Special Court'), confirming the order of the 2nd respondent - Special Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Adilabad, constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short, 'the Special Tribunal'), dated 2-7-1993 in L.G.O.P. No. 9/89.2. The petitioners are the appellants before the Special Court and the respondents before the Special Tribunal. The respondents approached the Special Tribunal stating that they had purchased the petition schedule property from P.W.4 under the registered sale deed dt. 12-5-1980 and that the petitioners have grabbed the suit schedule land without any right over the same. It is their case that the petition schedule property viz., plot No. 87 of 50'x30', situate at Hamidpura locality of Adilabad town, originally belonged t...
M/S. Ambuga Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. A. P. Pollution Control Board and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP41
ORDER1. The petitioner is an Industry manufacturing certain chemicals is agreed by the order passed by the respondent-Pollution Control Board on 4-4-1996 whereunder the petitioner-industry is directed to stop all its industrial activities.2. The petitioner, as at present is allegedly manufacturing two chemicals-- (1) Phthalic Anhydride (PA) and (2) Fumaric Act (FA). In the process of manufacturing of PA no effluents as such are generated and there would be no question of polluting the water. However, in the manufacturing of FA certain effluents are generated and the petitioner has a in house effluent treatment plant (ETP) where the effluents generated in the process of manufacture of FA are partially treated. The petitioner is also a member of Patancheru Envirotech Limited (PETL) and the partially treated effluents are to be transported by the petitioner to PETL where it is fully treated before being discharged.3. The petitioner-industry is stated to have become sick and the proceeding...
R. Prasad and anr. Vs. the Executive Director, Apsrtc, Cuddapah Zone a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT42; (1997)ILLJ28AP
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Notification No. 684 (5)/95-ED 'C' dated June 19, 1995, calling for applications for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants by direct recruitment, without exhausting the selected panel already made on June 27, 1991, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to appoint the candidates in the panel and thereafter make recruitment for the post of Junior Assistants. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioners are Conductors in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short The Corporation). The 1st petitioner was appointed on July 1, 1987 while the 2nd petitioner on July 1, 1986 and they are graduates. While so, a test was conducted for the internal candidates possessing requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants. Accordingly number of persons including the petitioners attended the test and ...
K.B.V. Nagabhushana Gupta Vs. Ramadugu Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT100
B.K. Somasekhara, J. 1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of first respondent depended upon in O.S.No. 85 of 1982 which was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge, Khammam on 25-4-1987 which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Khammam in A.S.No. 24 of 1987 dated 30-12-1988 has resulted in this second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law.2. Non-compliance of mandatory requirement in a suit for specific performance; to plead readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract by the plaintiff is fatal to the suit and in this case when that was not done in addition to want of proof, the learned Judges of the Courts below were totally beyond the legal fore to spell their findings and the decisions.3. When the claim petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. in regard to the property covered by the agreement which was under attachment in the Execution proceedings filed by defendant No. 2 came to be...
Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs. Putta Mysura Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALD(Cri)704; 1996(3)ALT222
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The appellant and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed Original Suit No. 60 of 1983 in Subordinate Judge's Court at Proddatur for recovery of Rs. 16,176/- with costs etc., based on Ex. A-1 pronote dated 16-7-1977 alleging that for a consideration of Rs. 9,800/- the appellant had obtained from him, he executed the suit pronote and had agreed to repay it with interest at 12 per cent per annum. On demand he paid Rs. 500/- on 16-7-1980 regarding which an endorsement was made on the back of Ex. A-1 and in spite of the demand and the notice issued to him as per Ex. B-1, which was replied as per Ex. A-3 he did not pay the amount and therefore he had to file the suit. The defendant resisted the suit by denying the execution of the suit pronote and passing of the consideration thereunder. He sought for the dismissal of the suit These issues were framed:(1) Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration?(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »