Andhra Pradesh Court November 1998 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.
Pathipaka Govardhan and Others Vs. Pathipaka Anandam and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD79; 1999(1)ALT144
ORDER1. This revision is preferred against the order passed by the District Munsif, Sircilla in IA No.370 of 1997 in OS No.177 of 1995, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 210 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed.2. The respondent No.l had filed the suit for partition against the petitioners as also against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in OS No.177 of 1995. The petitioners 5, 6 and 7 are minors. The trial Court in IA No. 161 of 1995 had appointed the 4th petitioner as guardian ad litem of the petitioners 5, 6 and 7 who are defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 in that suit. Ex parts preliminary decree has been passed on 13-2-1997.3. The petitioners had filed IA No.370 of 1997 for condonation of delay of 210 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.4. It is alleged that the first petitioner suffered from Jaundice and Typhoid from 10-2-1997 to 7-9-1997, while the remaining petitioners...
Ch. Sangaiah Vs. Mylavarapu Sowbhagyamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT27
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. Heard2. This application is filed to condone the inordinate delay of 224 days in preferring the revision. The reason given in the affidavit is that the petitioner could not contact his advocate as his advocate was attending to his father who was shifted to Appollo Hospital, Hyderabad and copy of the order was served on his Advocate at Khammam on 21-4-1992. Ultimately, the father of his advocate died on 10-11-1992 and after that, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner could not contact the advocate.3. In a recent decision of Apex Court reported in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., : 1997ECR785(SC) (D.N.). Their Lordships have observed.'the rigour of limitation has to be applied in the case and equity also cannot be the basis for extending the period of limitation on equitable grounds.'Following the same, I am not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 224 days.4. Accordingly this C.M.P. is dismissed. No costs....
M.R. Appa Rao and Another Vs. Director of Settlements, Govt. of A.P. a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD777; 1998(6)ALT377
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. The Zamin Estate of Vuyyur I and II and Mederu Estate were notified together as one group by mistake and were taken over on 7-10-1950 under the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and final compensation was determined on 20-6-1961 making some interim payments meanwhile. After realizing the mistake, the Government renotified Mederu Zamin Estate separately on 1-10-1963 and final compensation was also determined on 21-11-1964. So also compensation was separately determined for Vuyyur Estate on 5-4-1966. As per the Act, till the compensation is determined and deposited, interim payments have to be made. Accordingly, the Director of Settlements in his reference RC A3-25833/66 dated 16-8-1966 determined that a net amount of Rs.5,76,864-11 towards compensation, Rs.68,297-70 by way of interim payment, and Rs. 5,08,5 66-41 as interest payable to the landholders...
Raghunath Cotton and Oil Products Ltd. Vs. Ramarao Cotton Company and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD727; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)808; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)55; [1999]95CompCas852(AP)
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ1. Since the decision of the Privy Council in the oft-cited decision in Emperor v. Ncizir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18, the law as regards the interference with the investigation by the police in matters which are within their province and domain stands well settled to the effect and in the words of Lord Porter, 'no doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation' and the converse situation, therefore, is that an investigation cannot be quashed if some cognizable offence is disclosed by the first information report. The observations of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapin Kumar Gniha, : 1982CriLJ819 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajtm lal, : 1992CriLJ527 as also in the case of Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, : 1994CriLJ2086 , lend concurrence to the view as above. The factum of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sectio...
Visakha Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Vs. Municipal Cor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALT832
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for both parties.2. In view of the Judgment of this Court in J. Gopalan v. MCH : AIR1996AP371 and the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court as reported in the Indian Express, Visakhapatnam dated 6-10-1998 as also the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21-7-1995 between the Bangalore City Corporation and Compassion Unlimited Plus Action on Dog Pound, Koramangala, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit the Pilot Project proposals regarding sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs to the respondent-Municipal Corporation within three months from to-day. On such submission of the proposals by the petitioner, the respondent-Municipal Corporation shall duly consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months thereafter. In the meantime, the respondents may destroy or kill only critically ill, violent, fatally injured and rabid dogs, after properly identifying such d...
Surapaneni Umamaheswara Rao Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALT413
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J.1. In spite of service of notice the first respondent-plaintiff has not chosen to appear to contest this civil revision petition which is filed by the seventh defendant in the suit questioning the order dated 22-7-1997 passed by the lower Court. By the said order, the lower Court summarily rejected at the SR stage the application filed by the petitioner seeking to send the suit documents to a hand writing expert for comparing the disputed signatures with his admitted signatures. The lower Court dismissed the application observing that the plea of the defendants is one of denial of execution only but not one of forgery and so the burden is on the plaintiff to prove execution and hence the petition is rejected. The petitioner in his written statement filed in the suit has taken a specific plea in para 2 that he has not signed any document whatsoever at any point of time in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and much less the alleged suit documents i.e., acknowledgement of...
Abdul Wajeed Vs. Apsrtc, Regional Manager, Karimnagar and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD189; 1999(1)ALT192
ORDER1. The first respondent issued tender notification calling for tenders in sealed covers for granting licence to run soda and Cool drinking shop located at Koratla bus stand for a period of three years. In response to the notification, the petitioner submitted his sealed tender. The petitioner was the only tenderer. The tender was opened on 8-7-1998, and the petitioner offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2808/- per month. The rate offered by the petitioner was not acceptable to the tender committee. Hence, the petitioner was called for negotiation. Negotiation took place on 12-8-1998, and at the negotiation, the petitioner offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs.4,509/- per month. Even then, licence was not granted to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot the shop in favour of the petitioner.2. The respondents have filed counter. In the Counter, it is stated that as per the guidelines framed by the Corporation, th...
G. Sudhakar and 98 Others Vs. L.i.C. of India, Divisional Office, Saif ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD527; 1998(6)ALT147
ORDER1. The petitioners, 99 in number and roughly hundred and more others were appointed by the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) de hors the relevant recruitment rules as members of the sub-staff against the clear existing vacancies. They have put in between 5 to 12 years of service. The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the management of the L.I.C. to absorb all the petitioners on permanent basis and they have sought consequential relief to restrain the management of the L.I.C. from terminating the services of the petitioners.2. In response to rule nisi, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners. In the counter, it is claimed that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court relating to absorption/regularisation of the service of temporary/ad hoc/casual employees, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them; the Life Insurance Corporation of India Recruitment (of Class ...
Bhaskara Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Apseb, Hyderabad and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD781; 1998(6)ALT436
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Teh petitioner-Company owns landed property in Sy.Nos. 362, 363, 365/1 situated at Gudur village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District to an extent of Ac.33-00 having purchased the same by the registered sale deed Nos.4591/94, 4592/1/94 and 4593/I/94 dated 7-9-1994. The petitioner - claims that those lands were converted as house sites/plots after obtaining lay-out permission from the Gudur Gram Panchayat, dated 21-8-1996. The petitioner complaining that the respondent authorities of the APSEB without any notice to the petitioner proposed to lay the over-head lines above the land of the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for declaration that the action of the respondents in encroaching upon the property of the petitioner and laying overhead lines for transmission of electrical energy and putting up towers for support of the lines as arbitrary and without authority of law and for a consequen...
Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi Vs. Posina Sathyanarayana and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD210; 1999(1)ALT222
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-1997 passed in IA No.1299 of 1997 in OS No.84 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kowur. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the first defendant for sending Ex.A1 -Agreement of Sale dated 13-3-1991 to the handwriting expert has been rejected by the Court below.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ex.A1 - Agreement of Sale is the suit agreement on the basis of which the first respondent - plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance. He further contended that in the written statement filed by the defendants, the said agreement of sale has been denied as a forged document, but the Court below has erred in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that since the handwriting expert assertains whether the signatures on Ex.A1 is that of the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »