Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Lakshmanna Vs. Chinna Govindappagari Chendrayudu and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD110; 1998(2)ALT263
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the oitters in I.A.No.441/1995 in O.S.No.90/92 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Penukonda. That was a petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to permit him to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit and the same was dismissed.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is mistakenly mentioned the wrong geneology in the suit filed by him and the first defendant is not a necessary party to the suit and he has no right in item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties and hence, sought for permission to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit.3. The second respondent filed counter resisting the said request of the petitioner.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits when the plaintiff sought for permission to withdraw the suit, normally the Court should permit the petitioner-plaintiff to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit and simply because it is a partition suit, permission cannot be denied and he relied on a de...
Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD313
ORDER1. Rule Nisi.2. These two writ petitions are interconnected and they are decided by a common order.3. The petitioner-society in WP No. 25825/97 is a registered Co-operative Society and this petition has been filed by the Society through its Chief Promoter. It is submitted that on 30th of September, 1994 the Society was registered in terms of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the licences in respect of the petitioner-society for 6 Toddy shops had been granted. The shops are (1) Nallakunta Phoolbagh, (2) Amberpet No.1 (3) Amberpet No.2, (4) Jamal Basti, (5) Patelnagar, and (6) Turabnagar. The licence has been granted for all these shops for a period of 5 yearsfrom 1-10-1996. It is further stated that there are 315 registered members in total in the petitioner society and ration is 31,000 and the rental is Rs.9,31,000/-. It is stated that, 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 1-10-1996 which was served on the petitioner on 10-10-1996. It directed the managing committee of the petit...
R. Bhaskar Reddy and Another Vs. Chinni @ Chengal Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD113; 1998(2)ALT384
ORDER1. This Revision is filed against the order refusing to send the document to second expert at the instance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners filed I.P.No. 13/1996. At the instance of the respondents the documents was sent for the opinion of the expert who gave his opinion stating that this document was forged. Now, the petitioners filed the present petition for appointment of second expert for considering the document i.e., Promissory Note for his opinion. The learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that they have ample opportunity to dislodge the opinion of the expert by examination and that there is no need to send the document for a second expert.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Judgment of Kerala High Court in Koragan v. Koran, 197S KLT 872. The learned Judge held that the opinion given by the expert is subject to cross-examination and other counter-evidence. The counter-evidence may be the opinion of another expert. With great respect I ...
Kadimsetti Somaraju Vs. Chekka Lakshmi Satyanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD96; 1998(1)ALT740
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the orders dated 7.9.1994 in E.P.No.199 of 1990 in O.S. No. 242 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.2. The brief facts in giving rise to the filing of this revision are as follows:The Decree Holder filed the suit on the basis of the mortgage deed executed by the J.Drs and obtained preliminary decree on 21.1.1985 and also obtained final decree on 22.2.1987. The decree holder filed the E.P. to bring the mortgage property to sale to realise the amount due under the said final decree in E.P.No.199 of 1990. It appears that the 1st J.Dr. filed I.P.No.1 of 1987 and he was adjudged as insolvent on 22.1.1990. The first J.Dr. filed a counter in the said E.P. stating that he was declared as insolvent and Official Receiver was appointed and the property vests with the Official Receiver and the mortgaged property was also shown in the schedule of debts filed in the Insolvency Petition No.1 of 1987 and hence he requ...
J. Jagannath Reddy Vs. L. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD453; 1998(1)ALT461
ORDER1. The order of the learned District Munsif, Jadcherla on I.A.No.353 of 1997 in O.S.No. 25 of 1997 dated 17.11.1997 is questioned. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.2. The impugned order arose this way:The plaintiff had obtained interim order of temporary injunction in his suit against the respondents. It came to be vacated. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter is pending in appeal. In themeanwhile, on behalf of the respondents herein I.A.No.353 of 1997 was filed under Section 151 CPC to grant police protection to them with the allegation that the plaintiff -petitioner was interfering with their possession regarding the suit property. The learned District Munsif passed the following order :'Heard Counsel for the petitioners. Inview of the fact that the injunction in favour of the respondent has been vacated holding that the respondent/ plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he is presently in poss...
Kadiyala Bala Gangadhar Joshi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD702; 1998(2)ALT22
ORDER1. This is a vrit petition by a Junior Lecturer in English working in Sarada Junior College, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada Questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion as Lecturer in English in Degree College under the control of the Ihird respondent as per G.O.Ms.No. 127, Education (CE.I) Department, dated 7-6-1993, on the ground that he did not possess 55% marks in the qualifying examination i.e., post-graduate decree in English. 2. My learned brother, Justice G. Bikshapathy while admitting the writ petition directed the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the orders in WPMP No.23274/96 dated 10-9-1996. After the receipt of the said order the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on two grounds - (1) both the institutions are not under the same management; and (2) the petitioner did not possess 55% of marks in the qualifying examination. Thereafter the petitioner filed WPMP.No.6977/97 ...
K. Manjula Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD174; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)267; 1998(1)ALT170; 1998CriLJ2741
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Petitioner is one Smt. K. Manjula, wife of Kalakonda Buchaiah. She approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus directing the production of her husband Sri Kalakonda Buchaiah, S/o Chandrasekharaiah of Madanapuram village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district from Musheerabad Jail, Secunderabad. A further direction is also sought to release her husband and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of detention dated 8-8-1997 made in Ref.No.D2/ 4971/97 by the second respondent as confirmed in Memo No.915/L&O-II;/97-12 and G.O.Rt. No.5213, dated 24-9-97 and 25-9-97 respectively by the first respondent as illegal, void and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.2. Few facts which have culminated in filing this writ petition are as under :According to the petitioner, her husband was doing business in wholesale kerosene in House No...
P.S. Anjani Vs. Convernor Mba Admissions, Dept. of Business Management ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD136
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise the question of validity of Rule X of the rules and regulations of MBA Admissions in Osmania University and its affiliated colleges, allocating 20% of the seats to the candidates who have studied the qualifying examination in media other than English (medium).2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are stated, in brief, as under:WPNo.27102/97:3. The petitioner appeared for MBACET 1997, the common entrance test for MBA course, held on 25-5-1997 with Hall ticket No.131228. She secured 114 marks out of the maximum of 200 marks and she was allotted State Rank of 03981 indicating that she should apply to the University concerned. She received a call-letter from the convenor requiring her to appear at the spot admissions venue on 17-10-1997. All the categories of students viz., OC, BC, SC, ST, Male, Female English medium and Telugu medium, who secured 122 and above marks would be considered for admission on 15-10-1997 and 16-10-1997 : All c...
Hind Metal Industries, Hyd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD253; 1998(2)ALT72
ORDER1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether there should be an order to be passed by the respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.) under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') before proceeding to recover under Section 45B of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The determination of question has arisen because of these facts.2. The appellant is an industry. It was to remit contributions to the Corporation under Section 39 of the Act regarding the employees who are to be compulsorily insured under Section 38 of the Act. The appellant is covered by the Act. The respondent Corporation initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.6,814-18 ps. towards the alleged ESI contributions for the periods extending from December, 1975 to March, 1977. The appellant raised dispute before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act raising a dispute as to its liability to pay the amounts demanded on the grounds viz., that there was no defa...
Surisetty Pitchaiah Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD689; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)202; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)504
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Sole accused in SC No.467 of 1989 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 25-3-1989 at about 10.00 a.m., he poured kerosene on Surisetti Jayamma and set her on fire and as a result she died at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, on the same day at 2.30 p.m.3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the accused is the husband of the deceased (Jayamma). The accused married the deceased 17 years back and she was living with the accused and that they did not have children. The accused for the past 3 or 4 years developed illicit intimacy with his neighbour Ramanamma, wife of Chinna Gurrappa of Mydukur and on that account, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. About two months back, prior to the occurrence, the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »