Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. E. Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD225; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)603; 1996(4)ALT259; 1996CriLJ4420
Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. These writ appeals are preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. As the point involved in these appeals is common, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in these appeals and submits that there is no material on record to show that the life convicts-respondents are between the age of 16 to 21 years. In the absence of enquiry as to the determination of the age by the Authorities as per the provisions of the A.P. Borstal School Act, 1925 (for short 'Act'), the learned single Judge erred in issuing directions to the appellants to send the respondents, who are undergoing imprisonment for life in different prisons of the State, treating them as adolescent offenders for detention in the Borstal school. Next, he contended that the ...
Shreeji Traders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderaba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1077; 1997(96)ELT514(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring that Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for short the 'Rules' does not confer any jurisdiction and power on the respondent to attach duty-paid goods and for a consequential direction to declare that Order D.O.R. No. 21/88, CFC (PF), dated April 16, 1996 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction and is illegal. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in G.T.C. Brands of cigarettes at Hyderabad. It receives supplies of cigarettes from G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay and Hyderabad. It claims to have purchased central excise duty paid cigarettes from G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay and Hyderabad. On April 18, 1996 Order bearing D.O.R. No. 21/88 CFC (PF), dated April 16, 1996 issued by the 1st respondent, was served on the petitioner by the Inspector of Central Excise who came to the petitioner's premises along with two panch witnesses and attached goods wo...
Mettu Naresh Kumar Reddy Vs. Nellore Ramamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT521; 1996(4)ALT420
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 6/85 in O.S. No. 199/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kovur.2. The said Interlocutory Application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint in the manner given below;-(i) In para 3 of the plaint, after the words 'grant of' the following may be inserted: 'declaration and'.(ii) In para 4 of the plaint, after the words 'grant of', the following maybe inserted: 'declaration and'.(iii) In para 5 of the plaint, after the words 'relief of' the following may be inserted: 'declaration and'.(iv) In para 6A of the plaint, after the words 'granting', the following may be inserted: 'declaration and'.3. The said application was resisted by the respondents in the petition.4. After hearing both the sides the learned Munsif held that the proposed amendment, i.e., relief of declaration, is barred by limitation by virtue of Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the amendment can...
M. Narasimhulu Vs. M. Laxmamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT906
ORDERR. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No. 48 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, questioning the decree and Judgment dated 24-9-1983 by which the suit filed for recovery of the suit amount was decreed.2. The Respondent is the plaintiff and he filed the said suit contending that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 13,500/- from him on 30-5-1979 and agreed to repay the same with interest; that subsequently, on the same evening the defendant executed a memorandum in writing in the shape of a promissory note evidencing the earlier borrowing; that subsequently the defendant failed to discharge the debt inspite of a lawyer's notice issued to him prior to the filing of the suit and that the suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the suit amount. The defendant contested the suit contending that he never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note; that the plaintiff has no means to l...
V. Murali Prakash Rao Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT525
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, appropriately mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order of petitioner's removal from service dated 1-2-95 in Rc.A. No. 172 / 91 passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, together with the order ROC No. 540/95, C.Spl. (Con), dated 11-12-1995 passed by the Respondent No. 2 herein, as illegal and void, along with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits.2. Facts culminating in this writ petition and necessary for its disposal briefly stated are these:-The petitioner herein was working as Process Server in District Munsif Court, Venkatagiri, Nellore District. P.W.1 (B. Eswaraiah), P.W.2 (Shaik Muniraja), P.W.3 (B. Chandrasekhar Reddy), P.W.4 (Ch. Udaykumar) and two more persons sent Ex. P-3 petition to the District Judge, Nellore on 16-7-1991 complaining ag...
Adusumilli Sesharatham Vs. Atluri Jhansi Lakshmi Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT915
Y.V. Narayana, J.1. The decree-holder in E.P.No. 73 of 1987 in O.S.No. 64 of 1970 on the file of the learned Surbordinate Judge, Gudivada filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 7-10-1989 passed in E.A.N0. 179 of 1989 allowing the application by declaring that the Decree Holder is not entitled to prosecute the decree for realisation of the decretal amount against the schedule property alone leaving Ac. 6-97 cents of the 3rd Judgment Debtor and granting stay of all further steps in the E.P.2. This revision petition raises an important question of law as to whether the Decree Holder is entitled to proceed against some of the charged properties only, leaving the other charged properties as per the whims and fancies of the Decree Holder.3. Brief facts of the case are: The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.No. 64 of 1970 for maintenance and obtained a decree dated 30-12-1971. Under the said decree a charge was created on plaint A and B schedule properties for the decre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›