Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Aritakula Srinivasa Vs. A. Satyanarayana @ Nagababu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD495; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)42; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)246
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Sessions Judge, West Godavari in Criminal MP.No. 1673 of 1997 in S.CNo.204 of 1997 refusing to release the vehicle involved in commission of the offence on the ground that the case is already committed to the Sessions Court, the owner of the vehicle filed this revision seeking quashing of the order of the Court below. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that the vehicle has been used in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and admittedly the owner of Ihe vehicle has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. Unlike the offence under special enactments the question of confiscating the vehicle used in The commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of I.P.C. does not arise. That being the legal position, no purpose would be served in detaining the vehicle either in the Court or in the police station. If the vehicle is exposed lo sun and rain it will result in diminution i...
A. Vijaya Kumar and ors. Vs. Y.M.C.A. of Greater Hyderabad, Rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT401
ORDERR.M. Bapat, J.1. The review petitioners herein were the appellants in CM. A.No. 730 of 1997 on the file of this Court. The review petition is filed by the review petitioners herein for reviewing the Order dated 22-4-1997. By hearing both sides and with the consent of both the parties, the following order was passed. 'Heard both the sides. Both the sides are restrained from operating bank account. The respondent herein can carry out the other activities of Y.M.C.A. The learned Counsel for the respondent herein submits that without operating the bank account, the respondent herein will make arrangements to pay the salary of the employees of Y.M.C.A. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of O.S.No. 915 of 1996 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the main appeal is disposed of. No costs.' As stated earlier, this order was passed on 22-4-1997 with the consent of both the parties, wher...
Kolli Purushotham Chowdary Vs. Sri Balaji Finance Corporation Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT361
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Avanigadda rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte final decree passed in O.S.No.151 of 1989.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the only ground stated by the petitioner is that he could not attend the Court because his Counsel did not inform him about the transfer of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge was not inclined to accept the petitioner's version that he had no knowledge of transfer or the date of posting. The learned Judge commented that the petitioner had not even disclosed his defence 'till now even after lapse of two years'.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Koruprolu Atchaya and others v. Bideshi Raghuram Singh, : AIR1995AP58 . Construing the proviso to Rule 63 of Civil Rules of Practice (for short 'th...
Bhavani Sankasamma Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Off ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD584; 1998(1)ALT98
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Fewfacts are not disputed in this case viz., the nature of the land, its situation, its nature, the extent acquired, purpose for which the land is acquired, notification under Section 4(1), the date on which the possession was taken over etc. The claim of the petitioner-claimant before tire L.A.O. wasRs. 15007- per ankanam. On enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.210/- per ankanam and awarded compensation of Rs.9,413.04 including solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at 6%. Not satisfied with the award, the petitioner-claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the L.A.O. referred the matter to the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. After considering the matter, the learned Judge has enhanced the compensation at Rs.400/-per ankanani with solatium at 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at 9% and 15% as per Section 34 of L.A. Act. Infixing tire amount as mentioned above, the learned Judge had place...
Sreeram Finance Corporation, Ongole Vs. K. Devashahayam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD274A; 1997(6)ALT560
ORDER1. The judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Munsif, Ongole in SC No. 167 of 1995 are challenged. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,547-80 ps. based on a pronote alleged to have been executed by the defendants. The defendants resisted the suit on several grounds. They were all rejected. The learned District Munsif accepted the case of the plaintiff in regard to the execution of suit pronote Ex.A1, passing of consideration and the defendants being liable to pay the amount and also accepted amount outstanding to be paid as pleaded. The excessive payments pleaded by the defendants was also rejected. All these things were covered by Points 1 and 2 which were determined in favour of the plaintiff! However, while determining point No.3 viz., whether the suit is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of Section 69(2) of IndianPartnership Act, the learned District Munsif held in the n...
Chadalavada Venkata Narayana Prasad Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD496; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)43; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)286
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District in Crl.M.P.No.3101 of 1997 in C.C.No.278 of 1997 dated 08-10-1997 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the cash seized in Crime No. 107 of 91, Bheemavaram II Town Police Station, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order of the Magistrate. 3. The Magistrate on an erroneous view of the matter i.e., discrepatory particulars of the packet or the denomination of the notes that were recovered were not furnished and dismissed the application field by the petitioner forgetting the fact that the amount involved is to a tune of Rs.2,45,000/- and also the fact that no human being will note down the numbers of the currency notes in his possession. More so of such a huge amount anticipating theft. I am sure if the Magistrate looses Rs.100/- r...
Y. Venkata Rama Rao and anr. Vs. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD14; 1998(1)ALT516
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of together as common questions of law are involved revolving around the provisions contained under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and its related provisions, regarding the supersession of the Managing Committee and effects thereof. There is already a decision of the learned single Judge (Justice S.R Nayak) reported in A. Govardhana Rao v. Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, : (1996)IILLJ314AP , which when cited in WPNo.359 of 1996, another learned single Judge, Justice G. Bikshapathy, had referred the writ petition to Division Bench in view of the important point involved having regard to the co-operativemovement and that is how these cases have come-up before this Division Bench.2. In Writ Petition No.359/1996, the 1st Petitioner is the President of Pallertamudi Chittaranjan Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society while the...
T. Ghanshyam Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD54
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition the issue that arises for consideration by this Court would be whether the benefits extended to the employees working in Governmental Educational Institutions, more so, with regard to the appointment of the children of the Government employees retired on medical grounds as provided in G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD, dated 30-7-1980 can be extended to the children of the employees working under the private aided educational Institutions.2. The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the petitioner's father who was working as Attender in the 3rd respondent-College sought retirement on the ground of medical invalidation on 21-3-1996. Three months thereafter, (i.e.) on 22-6-1996 he died. At the time of retirement, on medical invalidation, of the petitioner's father, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner for appointment as Attender on 24-1-1996 on par with the children of the employees working in the Government and educational institutions who ...
S. Suryaprakash Rao and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Family Court and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT420
S. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioners are Advocates. The 1st petitioner appeared for the 2nd respondent i.e., the petitioner in O.P.No.104 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad preferred against the 3rd respondent i.e., the respondent therein (wife of the petitioner in the O.P.) for divorce; and the 2nd petitioner appeared for the respondent in the O.P. They questioned the validity and propriety of notice in Dis. No. 229/97, dated 26-7-1997, issued by the 1st respondent herein i.e., the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Secunderabad, directing them 'to appear before the Court (Family Court, Secunderabad) on 4-8-97 at 10-30 a.m. without fail to show cause why Contempt of Court proceedings should not be initiated in view of the contents in joint memo dated 3-7-97'.2. The joint memo referred to in the impugned notice was filed by the petitioner and respondent in the said O.P.No.104 of 1996. The contents of that memo speak by themselves and they are as follows:'It is submitt...
A. Suresh Babu Vs. Apseb, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD590; 1998(1)ALT121
ORDERPetitioner is a B.Tech (Mechanical) Engineering graduate. He was taken as Apprentice Trainee in the respondent-Board on 8-4-1993 for a period of one year. He had undergone the apprentice training and obtained necessary certificate to the effect from the competent authority.2. While so, the respondent-Board on 1-1-1997 notified 17 vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) inviting applications from eligible candidates. Petitioner having successfully completed the apprentice training for one year has also responded to the notification and applied for the said post. The respondent-Board had conducted written test followed by oral interview for the above posts. Petitioner states that though he appeared for the written, he was not called for oral interview and therefore, he approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondent-Board to immediately appoint him as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in one of the existing vacancies.3. During th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »