Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Kolli Venkata Apparao and anr. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT530; [1999]95CompCas95(AP)
D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The defendants who have suffered a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 2,40,070.80 calculated up to April 13, 1993, i.e., Rs. 55,000 towards principal, Rs. 1,73,693.80 towards interest and Rs. 11,377.00 towards costs in O.S. No. 64 of 1986, a suit for foreclosure filed by the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Proddatur, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, are the appellants herein. 2. The suit has been filed on the foot of the hypothecation deed dated April 10, 1974, executed by the first appellant as borrower and the second appellant as guarantor for a sum of Rs. 55,000 together with interest at 1/2 per cent. over the SBI advance rate subject to a minimum of 12 1/2 per cent. per annum with half-yearly rests. The appellants admitted the execution of the deed of hypothecation dated April 10, 1974, and the demand promissory notes referred to in the plaint. However, they resisted the suit claim on several grounds, the main being tha...
T. Krishna and ors. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD642
1. Heard Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for Respondents 1 to 4 and Smt. Nanda Ramachander Rao, learned Counsel for Respondents 5 and 6.2. The matter was listed before this Court for vacating the interim orders dated 4-4-1996 in WPMP No.8475 of 1996.Counters have been filed on behalf of the respondents. As the arguments in the Miscellaneous Petitions are same as in the main writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel for either parties, arguments were heard in the main writ petition.3. The above writ petition is filed questioning the Resolution passed by the 5th Respondent Market Committee dated 9-11-1995 declining to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners covered by Sy.Nos.784/785 admeasuringAC.3.04.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent - Marketing Committee sought the willingness of the petitioners for taking over the land for establishing cattle yard. The petitioners on 25-9-1992...
G. Balaiah Vs. G. Ramchander and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT463
D.H. Nasir, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, this Court is concerned with a question whether the executant of an unregistered sale deed could be permitted to be examined as Court witness and whether a Court witness could be cross-examined by the rival parties.2. The order passed by the District Munsif at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, on 7-2-1997 in LA. No.806 of 1996 in O.S. No.48 of 1991 held that it was not objectionable for the Court to call Sri D. Lingamaiah to be examined as Court witness and to permit the parties to cross-examine him. The lower Court mainly observed that the respondent/plaintiff claimed possession of the property in question under an unregistered sale deed alleged to have been executed by Sri D. Lingamaiah; although in a suit for simple injunction, according to the learned trial Judge, the question of title need not be decided, but incidentally the title had to be gone through and for that purpose it was not objectionable to the Court to call the said witne...
Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad Vs. Sri Aditya Mass Communications Pvt. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD286; 1997(6)ALT160
ORDERP.S. Mishra, CJ. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. According to the petitioner-respondent, he responded to a tender-notice and submitted his tender with the earnest money deposited of Rupees twenty lakhs. Before, however, the tender was opened, he demanded withdrawal of the earnest money deposit referring to clause(14) of the Conditions of Tender. Petitioner-respondent has alleged, he could withdraw his tender before it was opened and since he intended to do so he demanded return of the earnest money deposit. In spite of the demand, it is alleged, appellant has not refunded the earnest money. Learned single Judge has directed for the return of the tender money with interest at 1% per month. 3. Precisely to take notice of theevents, we may recall that the petitioner-respondent submitted his tender along with the demand draft of Rs.20...
Satya Sai Prasad and anr. Vs. Dir. National Remote Sensing Agency, Dep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT600
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. As both writ petitions raised identical questions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in the above writ petitions are two Draughtsman Category-C who were selected and thereafter appointed on contract basis. The petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions served for about 4 years. The petitioners have assailed the action of the respondents in disengaging their services and for directions to issue appointment orders and for certain consequential benefits. 3. The contentions as advanced in the above cases on similar facts were considered by Division Bench of this Court in T. Bhupal v. Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad 1997 (4) ALT 500. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said matter with observations as under : 'We, however, are of the view that in case there is any future vacancy, Petitioner-appellant's experience must come to his aid and he should not be denied consider...
A. Sadanand Vs. Y.M. Pai, Dy. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hyd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD590; 1998(2)ALT598
ORDER1. This Contempt Case was filed by the petitioner alleging that without complying with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 16216 of 1996 dated 5-11-1996 fully, the respondent is trying to hold the disciplinary proceedings and the same amounts to flouting the orders of this Court.2. hi this case, this Court is called upon to decide not only the issue whether the respondent-Bank flouted the orders of this Court or not but also whether this Court can interdict the disciplinary proceedings in the middest when a serious illegality came to its notice or the proceedings should be allowed to be completed ?3. By order dated 27-2-1997 notice before admission was given returnable by 13-3-1997. After receipt of the notice, respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the orders of this Court as many as 179 documents on which the Management intends to rely to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner were furnished, and also particulars of 24 missing vouchers we...
N. Vittal Rao Vs. N. Raja Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT670
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This C.R.P. is filed against the order in I.A.No. 358 of 1997 in O.S.No. 29 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Adoni dated 6-8-1997.2. I.A.No. 358 of 1997 is filed to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of partition entered into on 28-4-1983. The brief facts are that there was a partition between the members of the joint family in respect of all other properties except the properties covered by the agreement dated 28-4-1983. In the said agreement the manner in which the item of the property covered by the agreement is to be partitioned is mentioned. When the defendant did not honour the agreement the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No. 29 of 1985 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 28-4-1983.3. At the stage of arguments the petitioner filed three I. As., i.e., I.A.Nos. 356, 357 and 358 of 1997. I.A.No. 356 of 1997 is filed to reopen the suit to enable the plaintiff to let in...
Ambati Ramakumar and Another Vs. A.V. Chalamappa Setty and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD740
ORDER1. Plaintiff's are the appellants. Their suit for partition and separate possession has been partly dismissed.2. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant and grand-father of the plaintiffs. PW3 is his brother while PW2 is his nephew. Item No.6 of the Plaint 'A' Schedule property was allotted to the 2nd defendant in Ex.Dl, dated 2-6-1958. The remaining Plaint 'A' Schedule properties, that is Items 1 to 5 allottea to the 1st defendant have been sold to the defendants No.3 to 5 through separate sale deeds, by him.3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for their 2/5th share in the Plaint 'A' and Plaint 'B' Schedule Properties, alleging that these properties belong to the Joint Hindu Family consisting of the plaintiffs, their father, that is the second defendant and their grand-father, the first defendant. The 2nd defendant has got 1/10th share in them while the 1st defendant has got half share in them. Their father, that is the 2nd defendant, was a man of feeble-mind and was easil...
Devarapathi Pattabhi Ramaiah Vs. Daruhiri Lakshmi Presanna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD783; 1997(6)ALT475
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J 1. The presentCivil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed in I.A.No. 190 of 1994 in Original Suit No. 16 of l989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 10-2-1994.2. The respondents in the revision-pelition filed a suit against the petitioner herein in Original Suit No. 16 of 1989 for declaration of their title and for possession and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties presumably on the basis of a will (the facts are not very clear from the record). Trial of the suit commenced. Some witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs were examined. The second plaintiff filed a petition in I.A.No. 190 of 1994 under Order 18 Rule 3A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that she may be permitted to examine herself as a witness. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein. However, the learned Subordinate Judge by his Order dated 10-2-1994 allowed the said I.A., questioning the said order, t...
Naraharasetti Pattabhirama Rao and anr. Vs. Maddula Kasi Viswanathappa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT245
C.V.N. Sastri, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the partition deed marked as Ex.A-3 in the case evidences merely a partial partition or it has brought about a division in status. The Courts below have expressed conflicting views on this question. While the trial Court held that Ex.A-3 has resulted in the disruption of the joint family, the learned Single Judge held that under Ex.A-3 only some specified properties of the joint family were partitioned without affecting the status of the family and the remaining properties continued to be the joint family properties. For proper appreciation of the question involved, it may be necessary to recount the facts of the case briefly.2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs and the third defendant are sons of the second defendant. The first defendant is the alienee having purchased the suit property, consisting of two shop rooms in Eluru town, under a re...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »