Andhra Pradesh Court January 1997 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.
Shaik Bandagi Saheb Vs. Shaik Nurulla Saheb
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT380
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. An important question of law of general importance whether the appellate Court acting Under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short 'the Act', has the power to remand the proceedings to the Rent Controller for fresh trial and disposal, arises for consideration and decision in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition be stated briefly as under:The respondent herein filed R.C.C. No. 23 of 1993 against the petitioner herein for his eviction from the petition schedule premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent in the Court of the Rent Controller, Ongole. The petitioner filed his counter inter alia contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between him and the respondent. In the said R.C.C. the respondent herein filed I.A.No. 183/94 Under Section 11(4) of the Act with a prayer for eviction of the tenant from the petition sc...
Laxmi Bai and ors. Vs. Yashoda Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT302
ORDERS. Dasaradharama Reddy, J.1. As all the C.R.Ps. are interconnected and are filed against the common judgment of the Appellate Court and arise out of one eviction petition, they are clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment. These petitions are filed by the landlords who are widow, sons and daughters of late Kishan Rao Patangay who died on 2-11-1979, against six tenants for eviction. The eviction petition which was originally filed against fourteen tenants was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and against the same seven tenants have preferred appeals successfully. The other seven tenants who have not preferred appeals have vacated the premises. Even among the seven tenants who have appealed one tenant has since vacated the premises and that is how the landlords have preferred six C.R.Ps. against six tenants. The parties are referred to in the judgment as arrayed in the eviction petition. The particulars regarding the premises and the grounds of eviction as stated in the evi...
Pallothu Pattabhiramaiah Vs. Extension Officer (Panchayats), Panchayat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT623
ORDERA. Hanumanthu, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23-4-1991 passed by the I Addl. District Munsiff, Guntur in E.P. No. 258/85 in S.E.L.F. No. 4/1980-81.2. The facts leading for filing of this revision petition are as follows: The revision petitioner P. Pattabiramaiah worked as Sarpanch of Visadala Gram Panchayat from 1956 to 1964 and again from 1970 to 1981. One Guduru Lakshmnarayana was Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat from 1964 to 1970. An audit was effected with regard to the accounts of that Gram Panchayat as per the Rules of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 and that audit was completed on 28-10-1978. The Audit Officer based on audit report issued the Surcharge Certificate 4/80-81 on 4-4-1980 against the revision-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7937/- representing the loss caused to the funds of that Gram Panchayat. Ex. A-1 is the said Surcharge Certificate, dated 4-4-1980. The revision-petitioner is alleged to have caused loss to the Gram Panchayat in a sum of Rs....
V.S.N. Benarji, Engineers and Contractors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1997
Reported in: AIR1998AP29
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. All the counsels appearing for the parties submitted that the main writ petition itself may be disposed of.2. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to allot all items of package-I for which the petitioner has submitted its tender in response to the Tender Notification in Chit Tender Notice No. HUDA/DEV/GL.U/13/95-96 dated 1 -3-1996 issued by the 2nd respondent.3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Siva Rama Sastry appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent has invited tenders from registered pre-qualified contractors for executing works on lump sum contract and on turn-key basis by the notification bearing Chit Tender Notice No. HUDA/DEV/GL.U/13/95-96, dated 1-3-1996. The tenders were invited in six packages for construction of bridges and flyovers within twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The petitioner has been recognised by the 2nd respondent vide h...
Paramount Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Sirajunnisa Begum and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT243
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order in LA. No. 1351 of 1995 in LA. No. 854 of 1984 in OS. No. 42 of 1962 dated 10-7-1996 passed by the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy submits that the petition has been filed to pass final decree in respect of agricultural lands situated at Hakimpet village admeasuring Ac. 45-00 of land out of Ac. 66-00 of agricultural dry land allotted to the share of the plaintiff and defendants 3,4,6,14 to 17 and legal representatives of the deceased second defendant (respondent No. 30). It is stated that the respondent No. 29 opposed the application and the First Additional Judge by his order dated 29-3-1996 in LA. No. 1851 of 1995 in LA. No. 854/84 in O.S. No. 42 of 1962 overruled the objection of the respondent No. 29 allowed the petition and directed t...
Ch. Ramaswamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD552; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)72
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1.The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause, contemplated in Rule 973 of the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Prison Rules), can be deemed to have been complied with by affording an oral opportunity.2. The petitioner is the prisoner (convict No.9328, Central Prison, Warangal). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Accordingly he was sent to jail on September 26, 1984. He would complete that senlence on September 25, 2004. However, in view of the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.3 (Home (P) Department) dated 17-1-1995 and G.O.Ms.No.4 (Home (P) Department) dated 17-1-1995, the petitioner was entitled to be released, if as on January 14, 1995 he had undergone ten (10) years of imprisonment after granting remission. The petitioner claimed that he had complied with the requirements of the Government Orders and sought a direction to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›