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.
Tej Prakash S. Dangi and ors. Vs. Coromandal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas270(AP)
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. This petition seeks a declaration that the forfeiture of the shares held by the petitioners in the first respondent company by a notice published in the Deccan Chronicle, dated January 11, 1996, is void and that the petitioners continued to be the holders of the shares. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the company floated a public issue of 33 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each and since the company was sick at that time the petitioners applied for the allotment of those shares and also paid the initial application money upon which 21,15,400 shares were allotted to the petitioners. It is stated that the share certificates were issued endorsed as fully paid-up and some of them were also transferred by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, cheques issued by the first and ninth petitioners bounced. Thereafter, notices of forfeiture of the shares were sent by the company on December 2, 1995, which were not received by petitioners No...
K. Sathaiah and ors. Vs. the A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT250
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions were taken as casual labourers in the various divisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board prior to 1981. Pursuant to the agreement reached between the workers' union and the Electricity Board, they applied for absorption in the posts of Helpers, etc. But the respondents refused to absorb them on the ground that they were more than 25 years even at the time when they were first taken in as casual labourers. It is not in dispute that they were otherwise qualified and that the only ground on which they were refused absorption is that they were thus over-aged because the maximum age for employment in the posts of Helper, etc., was at the relevant time 25 years - it continues to be so even now.2. The petitioners contend that their cases are covered by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. l6132 of 1992 dated 29-8-1994. The Board preferred an appeal against the said judgment by way of Writ...
Ravula Rama Krishna Vs. Shaik Mahboob Basha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT33
R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal is the defendant in O.S. No. 154 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramachandrapuram, while the respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit.2. The defendant had taken the suit house on lease in the year 1984 from the then owners of the house viz., K. Nageswara Rao and K. Bheemasankara Rao, on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- and he was running his business in that house. He also paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the owners by way of advance and it was agreed that such amount should be returned to him by the owners at the time when he vacates the house. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the said house under Exs.A-1 & A-2 registered sale deeds, dated 16-10-1984 from the owners and at the time of such purchase the vendors placed the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was originally paid as advance to them by the defendant, at the disposal of the plaintiff to be returned to the defendant as and when he vacates the house. T...
Tukaram, Through G.P.A. Holder, Sri Shesharao Vs. Bheem Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT841
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The order of the learned District Munsif at Bichkunda on LA. 166/95 in O.S.No.3/92 dated 3rd day of April, 1996 is challenged. The revision petitioner claims to be the General Power of Attorney (for short GPA) holder of the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The petitioner filed the application under Section 151 CPC and by filing GPA into the Court sought the permission to prosecute the proceedings for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It was resisted by the respondents. The learned District Munsif after hearing both sides rejected the application.2. Mr. Dharmender Goud, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Vinodkumar Deshpande, llearned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the learned District Munsif is without any justification and not founded on legal principles.3. The respondents were notified before taking up the matter for admission. They have not responded to t...
Mandlappa @ Mandla Giriappa Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT162
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question of law: 'Whether the transfer of assigned land by the petitioner, who perfected his title by adverse possession by the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Joint Collector under the Act.2. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.7-39 cents of land in S. No. 443-1 of Kodihalli village, Agali Mandal, Anantapur district vide a registered sale deed dated 13-9-1944 from the original assignee, Fareed Sab. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner's father and after his death, the petitioner are in the possession of the land. While so, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20th September, 1988, to the original assignee, directing him to appear on 6-10-1988 and offer his explanation as to why the assignment made to him in S. No. 433-1 of Kodihalli village should...
M. Harichandra Prasad Vs. Chitturi Krishnamurthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT23
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. These two Appeals are directed against the common Judgment in AS. Nos. 34/78 and 35/78 dated 3-8-1987 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tanuku. They were the matters before the learned Subordinate Judge arising out of the common Judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tanuku in OS. Nos. 341/68 and 195/74 dated 8-3-1978. OS. 341/68 was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the raising of the height of 14' wall and constructed to the west of FG wall and the raising of the height of the old wall and the newly added wall as consolidated in the line GH as shown in the plaint plan. OS. No. 195/74 was the suit by the same plaintiff for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cut away the tree together with its roots and alternatively to declare that the wall HJV shown in the plaint plan belongs to the plaintiff and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with...
Nimmagadda Rama Devi and ors. Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT325
ORDERT. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These writ petitions are filed assailing the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer-2nd respondent herein cancelling the assignment of the petitioners and resuming the lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. IX of 1977).2. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in their possession were originally assigned to the assignees on payment of market value and granted 'D' form pattas to the assignees. Thereafter the assignees sold their lands to the third parties including (that of) the present petitioners. The M.R.O., 2nd respondent herein noticing that the lands were transferred by the original assignees in favour of the petitioners, issued a show-cause notice stating why the assignments should not be cancelled as the assignees have violated the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977. It is the case of the petitioners that the assignees have purchased the land from the Government on payment of market value w...
Smt. Pilli Yeteswari and anr. Vs. the Govt. of A.P. Rep. by Its Chief ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT485; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)184
ORDERLingaraja Rath, J.1. These two cases challenge the orders of preventive detention passed against the respective petitioners by the Commissioner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Orders of detention were passed on 6-6-1996 under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No. 1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); The representations of the two petitioners were rejected by the Government on 17-6-1996 while approving the detention and thereafter their cases were placed before the Advisory Board under the Acton 19-7-1996. The orders of detentions were confirmed by the Board for one year. Since both the detentions arise out of almost identical set of facts, both the cases are disposed of by this common order.2. Both the cases have been filed by the respective wives of the detenus. In W.P.No. 12572 of 1996, the detenu is one Pilli Kan...
Ch. Yashoda Devi and anr. Vs. B. Dayakar Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1097
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order in I.A. No. 712/89 in A.S. No. 19/1988 on the file of the first Addl. District Judge, Warangal. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the petitioners herein.2.Theplain tiff filed a suit O.S. No. 64/85 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Jangaon for partition of the suit schedule properties consisting of survey numbers 461/4 and 461/5. Against the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 64/85, A.S. No. 19/88 was filed in the First Addl. District Court, Warangal. Pending disposal of the appeal, LA. No. 712/89 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the first respondent in the C.R.P. requesting the Court to implead him as a party to the suit for partition.3. The first respondent was appointed as Receiver-Commissioner by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 1874/82 in O.S. No. 18/63. O.S. No. 18/63 was filed by one Mir Abbas Hyder Kazmi against Smt. Saleha Fatima for the administration of the Estate belonging to Mir Abbas Hyd...
Goverdhan Upadhyan Vs. Aekelle Kameswara Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1
R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2/1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem (originally O.S.No. 48/76 on the file of the Sub Court, Khammam) questioning the decree and Judgment dated 29-3-1982 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount was dismissed.2. The appellant-plaintiff had filed the above said suit seeking recovery of Rs.l5,0000/- from the defendants 1 to 4 contending as follows: The 4th defendant is a registered Chit Fund Company registered under the A.P. Chit funds Act and the plaintiff and the first defendant are the subscribers in the chits run by the 4th defendant. The first defendant became the prized subscriber for chit No. A-l bearing ticket No. 16 and the chit was for Rs. 20,000/- of 40 instalments of Rs. 500/- per each instalment The said chit was started on 20-4-1972 and it was terminated by 10-5-1975. The first defendant executed an agreement on 24-2-1972 in favour of the 4th defendant a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »