Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Uma Maheswara Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Director of Fishe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD377
1. The petitioner cooperative society was registered in the year 1962 with fishermen as it members. There are 70 members in the petitioner society who are seeking out their livelihood solely depending upon fishing. The area of operation of the petitioner society as per its bye-laws includes 1) Atreyapuram 2) Tadipudi 3) Vadapalli 4) Vasanthavada 5) Ucchilli 6) Vaddipami 7) Kattunga 8) Narkedimilli 9) Ankampalem and 10) Lolla villages. The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed rules in G.O. Ms. No.343, dated 10-4-1978 with respect to the leasing out of tanks in the Gram Panchayat. Under Rule 3(a)(1), the Gram Panchayats are empowered to lease out the tanks in the respective Gram Panchayats without public auction to the Fishermen Co-operative Society of the local area By the impugned Memo No.22530/12/95 dated 7-6-1996, the Director of Fisheries - 1st respondent herein accordedpermission to organise a separate Fishermen Co-operative Society at Lolla village with 12 promoters after deletion ...
Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. European Navig ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT771
Y.V. Narayana, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is - whether the matter could be referred to arbitration relying on Clause 50 of the Charterparty. 2. The facts in brief are : There was a Charterparty entered into between the shipowner (1st respondent herein) and the President of India. The revision petitioner, which is an endorsee of the bill of lading, raised a claim for Rupees two lakhs and odd, alleging that there was shortage in the delivery of goods and appointed an Arbitrator on its behalf, involving Clause 50 of the Charterparty. The first respondent - ship-owner filed the O.P. under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act for a finding whether there is any arbitration clause existing between the parties. The lower Court held that there is no arbitration clause/agreement between the parties and the petitioner herein cannot, therefore, go in for arbitration. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 3. Learned ...
Challa Venkata Subbayya Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT749; [1998]94CompCas803(AP)
R. Bayapu Reddy, J. 1. This revision petition is filed questioning the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, dated November 7, 1994, passed in E.A. No. 275 of 1987, in E.P. No. 19 of 1986. 2. The respondent, which is the Union Bank of India, Vijayawada, had obtained a money decree against the petitioner herein in O.S. No. 6 of 1974, on the file of the Sub-Court, Vijayawada. Later on, the respondent filed E.P. No. 19 of 1986, before the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, for executing the abovesaid decree and some amount was paid by the petitioner to the respondent in those execution proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner, who is judgment debtor No. 1 in the E.P. filed E.A. No. 275 of 1987, under Order 21, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act IV of 1938, contended that he had discharged the entire debt in instalments that by mistake, he made excess payment to a tune of Rs. 30,000; that he is an agriculturist and as such, the...
FakhruddIn Sharafali Ampanwala Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALD735; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)623; 1998CriLJ439
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. Can an application for bail in anticipation of arrest as contemplated under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be moved before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad instead of Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences 2. This Court in Superintendent Customs and Central Excise, Range II, Nellore Division, Nellore v. Elukala Krishnamachari, 1987 (32) ELT 324 (AP) has taken the view that only the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences is competent to entertain any application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a matter which is exclusively triable by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. Our learned brother Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J. however, has after taking notice of the Government notification in ROC. No. 1354/SO/82 dated 21-9-1982, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the Code (Act II of 1974) the High Court has appointed the Additional District and Sessions Ju...
Pasala Suryachandra Rao Vs. Vatti Venkata Ranga Pardhasaradhi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD179; 1999(2)ALT88
ORDER1. An interesting question is raised in this Civil Revision Petition which arises out of an order in E.P. No.45 of 1989 in OS No.27 of 1976 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, dated 15-7-1996. The question is 'whether the Court of Subordinate Judge at Tadepalligudem which has jurisdiction to try the suit if instituted at the time of filing the E.P., has jurisdiction to execute the decree in OS No.27 of 1976 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Kovvuru'.2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are;The revision petitioner filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of Sub-Judge at Eluru and it was numbered as OS No.16 of 1972. Tadepalligudem Town was within the jurisdiction of Sub-Court Eluru at that time and the said suit was instituted in that Court. Subsequently it was transferred, on administrative grounds, to Sub-Court, Kovvuru, and renumbered as OS No.27 of 1976. The parties entered into a compromise and a compromise...
P. Soloman Sukumar Vs. Latha Madhuri
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC71
M.N. Rao, J.1. Against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.806 of l996 in O.P. No. 1323 of 1995, allowing the application of the respondent-wife for interim maintenance, this Civil Revision Petition was filed.2. The Court below granted Rs. 1,000/- towards interim maintenance of the respondent-wife, Rs. 500/- towards the interim maintenance to the minor child and Rs. 600/- towards expenses for each day's hearing and Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses in conducting the proceedings of the case. The wife resides in Palakol in West Godavari District and the husband is a resident of Secunderabad and both are Christians by religion.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband says that petitioner's monthly income is only Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, the alimony granted pendente lite should not be in excess of one fifth of the husband's average net income for three preceding years and that there is no provision in the Act for gra...
T. Venkateswara Rao (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. T. Sundara Satyanarayana (Die ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC342
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. This C.M.P. is filed on 21.4.1994 to bring on record the Legal Representatives of the sole appellant who died on 26.1.1994. However, for some reason or the other the C.M.P. was not posted. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing before me and the same was allowed with costs on 25.9.1995. Though the appeal was allowed on 25.9.1995 either due to inadvertance or otherwise C.M.P. No. 8332/94 filed on 21.4.1994 was not ordered. Hence, the present petition is brought before this Court for purpose of ordering.2. The Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jang Singm v. Brij Lal, : [1964]2SCR145 , wherein it was held that'There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly ...
Teluguntta Venkateswara Rao (Died) Per L.Rs. T. Seetharamanujamma and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT344
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This C.M.P. is filed on 21-4-1994 to bring on record the Legal Representatives of the sole appellant who died on 26-1-1994. However, for some reason or the other the C.M.P. was not posted. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing before me and the same was allowed with costs on 25-9-1995. Though the appeal was allowed on 25-9-1995 either due to inadvertence or otherwise CMP No. 8332/94 filed on 21-4-1994 was not ordered. Hence, the present petition is brought before this Court for purpose of ordering.2. The Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, : [1964]2SCR145 wherein it was held that:'There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly...
K. Sitarama Rao Vs. D. Usha Sundari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT192
ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. This CRP is filed against the order in E.P.No. 135/1987 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, West Godavari at Eluru dated 27-1-1997 holding that the decree holder-respondent No. l is at liberty to proceed against the properties of the revision petitioner and directing further steps in that regard.2. Respondent No. l obtained a decree in O.S.No. 68/1979 against respondent No. 2-firm and its partners respondent Nos. 3, 4 and revision petitioner for recovery of Rs. 68,164/- with subsequent interest at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and costs. She filed E.P. No. 164/1985 earlier, but the same was dismissed as not pressed. She then filed the present E.P., viz., E.P.No. 135/1987 seeking sale of half of the E.P. schedule property for realisation of the decretal amount. It is stated that the decree was not satisfied and that the E.P. schedule property was already attached before judgment. The E.P. is resisted by the revision petitioner- ...
P. Soloman Sukumar Vs. Smt. Latha Madhuri
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT68
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. Against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in LA. No. 806 of 1996 in O.P.No. 1323 of 1995, allowing the application of the respondent-wife for interim maintenance, this Civil Revision Petition was filed.2. The Court below granted Rs. 1000/- towards interim maintenance of the respondent - wife, Rs. 500/- towards the interim maintenance to the minor child and Rs. 600/- towards expenses for each day's hearing and Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses in conducting the proceedings of the case. The wife resides in Palakol in West Godavari District and the husband is a resident of Secunderabad and both are Christians by religion.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner - husband says that petitioner's monthly income is only Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, the alimony granted pendente lite should not be in excess of one fifth of the husband's average net income for three preceding years and that there is no provision in the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »