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.
Pothula Rama Rathnamma and ors. Vs. Gorle Lavanyavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT271
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, in A.S.No. 49/1986, whereby the decree of dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No. 471/1981 has been reversed.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that in family partition, amongst others, the land bearing Survey No. 196/2, area 49 cents (for short 'the suit land') had fallen to the share of late Suri while his brother, B. Ramulu - D.W.3 - was allotted the other lands including 'Rellugaddi' admeasuring 50 cents. After the death of Suri, his share including the suit land had devolved on his son, B. Venkataramana - P.W.3. B. Venkataramana - P.W.3, had sold the suit land to the plaintiff through registered sale deed, Ex.A-1, dated 30-3-1981. The plaintiff has raised coconut crops in the suit land. The defendants also wanted to purchase the suit land, but having failed to do so, had sta...
Putcha Saradamba Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD719
ORDER1. The petitioner, wife of late Krishna Murthy, who retired from service as stenographer on attaining the age of superannuation in Guntur District filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, Secretary to Government (LA & J) Department, in passing G.O. Ms. No.219, Law (LA&J; Courts-D) Department, dated 30-10-1996, wherein the 2nd respondent refused to sanction family pension to the petitioner as it will create a bad precedent which will necessitate reopening of a number of cases which are similar in nature and it will also result in re-consideration of the whole issue on sanction of family pension to left over categories and as there has been a steep increase in the expenditure on pensions in the eight preceding years the Government is not in a position to take any further liability as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are ...
Chakravarthy and Company, Merchants and Agents, Through Its Manager, A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT674
ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. Petitioner is a firm carrying on business in Madras. On 4-1-1988 the Vigilance Authority of A.P. got information that the petitioner-firm was indulging in business in groundnut oil in the State of A.P. against the provisions of the law and transporting the said groundnut oil to Maharastra State clandestinely. Lorry bearing registration No. AEE 1269 which was allegedly transporting the said material was intercepted at Adilabad town which is the end-district of Andhra Pradesh. It was found carrying 95 quintals of groundnut oil. One person named Venkatanarsimham, who was a clerk serving in petitioner-firm, was found travelling with the lorry. He produced the Way Bill No. 221165 and credit bill No. 452 of 2-1-1988. The authorities detained the said lorry since it was suspected that the groundnut oil was not loaded at Madras as was alleged and, that the groundnut oil business was being done within Andhra Pradesh. As a result, further enquiry was caused by a visit to Ma...
C.A. Sattar Vs. L.C. Ayub
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT730
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both parties.2. This revision is directed against an order dismissing an application purported to be filed under Order 21 Rule 106 of C.P.C. to recall the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner-judgment debtor on 31-12-1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that his arrest was straightaway ordered by dispensing with the notice under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C. and without conducting any enquiry with regard to his means to pay the decretal amount as required under law. The Lower Court has dismissed the application and refused to recall the arrest warrant observing that 'Rule 106 of Order 21 C.P.C. does not attract the prayer of the petitioner' but directed that the petitioner has to appear before the Court and has to give undertaking to pay the E.P. amount showing his bona fides.3. Learned Counsel for respondent has contended that the petitioner is a retired teacher and has ample means to pay the decretal amount and he is wilfully e...
Polisetti Venkata Subbaiah Vs. Karre Venkata Prasad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT79
D.H. Nasir, J.1. The question which arises for our consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether voluntary surrender of the land under occupation of a tenant is binding upon the tenant or whether he could resile from the same.2. The present Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in A.T.A.No. 112 of 1985 dated 4-10-1991, which was decided against the tenant and in favour of the landlord.3. By an order dated 28-11-1985 in A.T.C.No. 13 of 1980, passed by the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Narsapur, the tenant's appeal under Section 16(1) of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for declaration of his tenancy rights and for permanent injunction against the respondents, was dismissed.4. The short facts are that the petitioner-tenant was a cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.3-75 cents of the land covered by R.S. Nos. 458/2 and 457 situated in Kopparru village belongin...
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Advocate General Vs. V. Prakasa Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)702; 1997(5)ALT724
ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The respondent-contemner (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') is an Advocate practising in the Courts of District Munsif and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) at Mulug and other Courts in Warangal District. Sri K. Ramesh, District Munsif, Mulug and Sri K. Balarama Raju, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile),Mulug addressed letters dt.13-10-1995 to the District Judge, Warangal, complaining many things against the contemner. However, in the case on hand, we are concerned only with what he is alleged to have done on 11-10-1995 between 4 and 4-30 p.m. in the office of the District Munsif's Court. On this aspect, the report of the District Munsif, Mulug reads as under:'.... on 11-10-1995 at about 4-30 p.m. the junior Advocate of Sri Prakash Rao furnished sureties in excise matters. As one of the sureties is not able to tell the particulars of the person correctly to whom he is standing surety, I have naturally rejected that sure...
Suresh Gir Vs. K. Ahadev
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD25; 1997(6)ALT436
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. There are three revision petitions before us filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). CRP No.346 of 1996 and CRP No.2384 of 1996 are filed by the tenant. CRP No.2306 of 1996 is filed by the landlord. Both the tenant and the landlord question the order of the appellate Authority under the said Act (Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) fixing the rent of the demised building at Rs.650/- per month and directing payment of arrears at that rate from the month of December, 1991. Whereas the landlord contend that the enhancement or fixation is too law, the tenant complains that the enhancement from Rs.210/- to Rs.650/- is quite high. It is the contention of the tenant that such enhancement is not warranted and the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority have no jurisdiction to do so. 2. The decision of the appellate authority fixing the rent as above is a sequel t...
Divvela Visweswara Rao Vs. Rayapudi Satyanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD123; 1998(2)ALT358
ORDER1. The judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in OS No.25S/78, dated 26-12-1983 is assailed by the defendant in the suit who is the appellant herein, the respondent being the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.21,201-39 with costs, interest etc. The suit is based upon a pronote dated 31-8-1975 executed by the defendant agreeing to repay the amount on demand with interest at 18% per annum. Rs.200/- were paid on 4-9-1977 regarding which an endorsement was made on the pronote. Since the balance was not paid inspite of repeated demands, the plaintiff had to file the suit. Ex.A1 is the suit pronote. While admitting that he has executed the suit pronote and paid Rs.200/- on 4-9-1977, towards part payment, as per endorsement, Ex.A2, he contended that no cash consideration passed at the time of the suit pronote as there was already a transaction between them wherein he had made several payments like Rs.1000/-on 22-7-1970, Rs.1000/- on 3-9-1971, Rs.1...
Management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribuna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD643
1. The above writ petition is filed by the Management-petitioner herein questioning the award in I.D.No.8 of 1980.2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the award in question are; That the petitioner is a public-sector undertaking owned by the Central Government and the State Government set up for extraction and sale of coal. The Government of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 7A and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') referred the following dispute :'Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited in placing in Category II Tub-repairing/ Making Mazdoor in Tub-repairing/making section at their Yellandu Workshop is justified. If not, to what relief are the concerned workman entitled ?' 3. The claim of the respondent -workmen is that the workmen i.e., Tub-repairing/making sectional Yellandu workshop should be categorised into Category IV instead of placing them in Category II...
Andhra Bank Vs. Inturi Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT392
C.V.N. Sastri, J.1. This appeal filed by the Andhra Bank, Plaintiff in the suit, relates to the question of interest only. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court scaled down the interest as per Act IV of 1938 on the ground that the defendants are agriculturists. It is the settled position that after the introduction of Section 21-A in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by amending Act 1 of 1984 Courts have no power to scale down the interest in respect of debts due to Banks. A Full Bench of this Court in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, 1993 (1) An.W.R. 380 .considered this question elaborately and held that Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies to all transactions entered into between the banking company and its debtor whether the transaction was entered into prior to its commencement or after and that Section 21-A applies to pending appeals irrespective of the fact whether a decree was passed giving relief to the debtot or not. It was also held that Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »