Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Prasad Singh Paradeshi and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)557; II(1997)DMC568
T. Ranga Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 391 of 1996 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petitioner are, briefly, as follows:That the first petitioner herein married the second respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and the petitioners 4, 6, 8 and 10 are the sisters-in-law of the first petitioner and the petitioner No. 5, is the husband of the petitioner No. 4, petitioner No. 7 is the husband of petitioner No. 6 and the petitioner No. 9 is husband of petitioner No. 8 and they are residents of Sholapur and A-4, A-5 and A-10 are residents of Pune of Maharashtra State.3. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 6.5.1996 alleging that the marriage in between the second respondent and the first petitioner was celebrated on 29.12.1993 at Hyder...
Boini Gangaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALT15
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Petitioner seeks a writ, direction or order, more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-notify the land published in the Gazette Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act admeasuring about 500 sq.yards in S.No. 235 situated at Malakpet which was taken from the petitioner on 12-1-1979 for widening their Railway sub-way under the bridge at Malakpet under the Land Acquisition Proceedings.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent issued notice Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land and also dispensed with the enquiry Under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner filed his claim petition, participated in the enquiry but curiously informed that no notice of passing of the award was issued to the petitioner as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner was under ...
Botcha Appalaswamy (Died) and ors. Vs. Ravada Annapurnama
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT141
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order passed in E.P. No. 20/84 in O.S. No. 72/91 (sic. 71) on the file of Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram.2. The Suit was filed for specific performance of the contract and the plaintiff obtained the decree. She filed E.P. in the year 1984 to execute the sale deed- The judgment-debtors took the plea that the E.P. is time barred and therefore the decree cannot be executed. The lower Court overruled the objection and E.P. was ordered to be proceeded with.3. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners submitted 15 that the suit was decreed on 1-7-1971. The E.P. should have been filed on or before 1-7-1983. Obviously, the E.P. is filed on 1-9-1984, i.e. beyond the period of limitation of 12 years as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. He further submitted that I.A.No. 1323/83 was filed to amend the decree by incorporating the time...
Sri Venkatachalapathi Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT677
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No. 155/91 in O.S.No.135/88 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati.2. The Suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein which is Andhra Bank to recover an amount of Rs. 81,41,000/- from the defendants 1 to 17. The 1st defendant Industry became sick. The same was referred before the B.I.F.R. and it was registered on 2-6-1988. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that once an industry becomes sick and registered before the B.I.F.R. the proceedings before any Court in respect of that industry have to be stayed until disposal of the application pending before the B.I.F.R. This contention was negatived by the lower Court.3. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed.4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 herein which is an Industry became sick and an application is pending disposal before B.I.F.R. In such a case, the proceedings ...
P. Satya Narayana Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Apseb an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT479
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The petitioner is an employee and the first respondent has made to retire him by the impugned order dated 29-02-1996 under the Memo No. SE/OP/ WGL/Estt./U2/D.No.3385/96 on the ground that he was superannuated as on 31-7-1995 but, was to be relieved on 29-2-1996 as he continued in service. This happened after an enquiry into the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the Service Register which was admitted to be incorrect. As his date of birth was 10-7-1937 he has to retire from service on 31-7-1995. The petitioner challenged the entire proceedings including purported enquiry and impugned order leading to his retirement from service on 29-2-1996.2. Sri R.K. Suri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is not proposing to pursue the remedy to challenge entire proceedings covered by the impugned order, since he is going to retire within few months, even accepting the correct date of birth. Therefore, he proposes that the peti...
Kailas Narayana Rao and ors. Vs. Ankam Narasimha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT286
V. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful landlords filed this revision petition challenging the judgment in R.C.A. No. 1/1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, dated 9-7-1990, who dismissed the appeal confirming the order of dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C.C. No. 36/1984 on the file of Rent Controller, Tenali. The parties will be referred to as the landlords and tenant.2. The landlords-revision petitioners filed the eviction petition Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, for short the 'Act', on two grounds viz., (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bonafide personal requirement for carrying on their gold and silver business. It is averred that the joint family of Gurram Alivelu Mangamma and her two sons sold the house including the demised shop on 15-5-1984 for a valuable consideration to the landlords herein for carrying on gold and silver business by installing the required machinery. The tenant was a...
A. Sudershan Vs. Mannen (Shabir) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)795; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)785; [1996]86CompCas435(AP)
B.S. Raikote, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated November 30, 1994, in Criminal Appeal No. 52, of 1994. By this order the learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by his judgment and order dated January 21, 1994, in C.C. No. 24 of 1991. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the impugned judgment and order of the appellate court is illegal and without jurisdiction and it is contrary to law and the facts of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to note a few facts of the case. The sole respondent-accused issued a cheque dated September 8, 1990, for an amount of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the complainant towards the purchase of iron scra...
Kommineni Sanjeeva Rao Vs. S.i. of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)852; 1997CriLJ3109
1. Instant proceeding has been taken up on a telegram to this Court by the petitioner, who has alleged that his wife - Mry Moa met a violent death while in judicial custody. Treating the telegram as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court directed for enquiry by the C.B.C.I.D. and pursuant to the directions of the Court, the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh got the enquiry conducted by Shri M. Lakshminarayana, IPS., Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Hyderabad, who has reported, inter alia, as follows : 'To sum up, there is ample evidence to show that the Excise Police criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased though it is not lying in their jurisdiction, picked up her from her house while beating her with sticks and hands and coerced her to divulge the whereabouts of her husband. The injuries noticed on the person during the post mortem examination co-related to the above evidence. The deceased was not beaten eithe...
Mansoor Saadi Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALD356; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)138; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)806; 1997CriLJ4198
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. Since this doesn't appear to be an appropriate case to enter into the question, whether a notice issued by the Inspector of Police, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and ordered by the Court, shall give rise to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, we leave the question open, but observe that we are entertaining the appeal only because we have found that the notice is clearly outside of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or any other law relatable to a criminal proceeding. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent limits the Court's power of appeal to civil proceedings only. A notice which has the effect of affecting right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and which is outside of the procedure established by law since affects a civil right, may, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution, be termed as of civil nature. We do not, however, make any final pronouncement on it. 2. The petit...
Anwar John Begum and ors. Vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Rep. by I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT737
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking relief under Section 12(2) of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The complaint of Mr. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the statute imposes a duty on the Market Committee to collect the market fees from the purchaser, but contrary to the same, the market fees is being collected from the seller. Section 12(2) reads :'(2) The fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock;'There is a proviso added to this which reads :'Provided that where the purchaser cannot be identified, the fees shall be paid by the seller.'As such, the intendment of the Act is so clear that at the first instance, the purchasers shall be made to pay the market fees and if the purchaser is identifiable, there cannot be any exception to the said liability of payment of market fees by the purcha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »