Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Dr. B.L. Anand Vs. Jaffar Hussain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD794; 1998(6)ALT770
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The above appeals arise out of a common judgment in OS No.1003 of 1983, OS No.l of 1984 and OS No.922 of 1991. All the suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in OS No.1003 of 1983, which is a suit for eviction of tenants. Dr B.L Anand, the first defendant in OS 1003 of 83 is appellant in CCCA No.64 of 1995. The first defendant-tenant Dr. B.L Anand is also appellant in CCCA No.177 of 195 since OS No.922 of 1991 filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rents for the first floor mulgis from 1-12-1980 to April, 1983 is decreed. He also filed CCCA No.196 of 1994 since OS No.l of 1984 filed by him was decreed partly only and as such he filed this appeal to the extent of disallowed claim. Ofcourse, CCCA 13 of 1995 was filed by the landlord as OS.700 of 1983 filed by him for recovery of rents from December, 1980 to April,. 1983 was dismissed, but however the CCCA 13 of 1995 was withdrawn on 6-7-1998 as his claim for arrears of rent was set...
Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)3CompLJ283(AP)
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. This is an application filed under sections 433(e) and (f) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent-company.2. It is no longer in dispute before me that on February 6, 1994, an agreement was executed between Ch. Savithri, S. Padma and Muralidhar on the one part and Sampat and V. Vijayalakshmi on the other part regarding' the payment of Rs. 3,53,330. The first party, that is to say, Ch. Savithri, S. Padma and Muralidhar had paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 to the second party, that is to say, Sampat and V. Vijayalakshmi and had agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 2,03,330 shall be paid to them. The manner and the mode of payment was agreed upon between them and the first party had undertaken the pressing work and the amount due to the first party towards charges of pressing work done in the past was also be taken into account in arriving at the value of Rs. 2,03,330 and the first party was entitled to obtain receipt for the same ...
Sri Lakshminarayana Contractors Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: [2000]118STC131(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The relief claimed in this writ petition is for a declaration declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to deduct the sales tax at 4 per cent from the bills payable to the petitioner for the contract work executed by him, namely, the earth work excavation and formation of embankment from km. 100 to 101 of Srisailam Left Branch Canal under L.S. Agreement No. 6 SE/95-96 dated December 8, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction.2. The third respondent awarded the contract of earth work excavation and formation of embankment from km. 100 to 101 of Srisailam Left Branch Canal to the petitioner. An L.S. Agreement No. 6 SE/95-96 dated December 8, 1995 was executed between the petitioner and the third respondent. As per the same, the value of the work to be done is Rs. 18,85,867,50. The nature of the contract work is only excavation of earth for the purpose of forming a canal and to put the removed mud on either side. While so the respondents ap...
C. Bala Varada Reddy Vs. District Registrar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALT93
ORDERR.M. Bapat, J.1. The petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the second respondent in issuing notice dated 15-9-1997 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently seeks a direction to the respondents to register the documents submitted by him for the purpose of registration relating to an extent of Ac. 0.79 cents out of a total extent of Ac. 1.31 cents in Sy. No. 14/3 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.2. The writ affidavit filed by the petitioner herein shows that the property in Sy. No. 14/3 to the extent of Ac. 1.31 cents of Tiruchanoor village, Tirupati Rural Mandal is a private patta land of Palamakulu Changalrayulu which belongs to his family as ancestral property. It is the further case of the petitioner that the owner of the said property was inclined to sell the same and the petitioner was prepared to buy to the extent of Ac. 0.79 cents in Sy. No.14/3 for con...
Santi Seetharamayya and anr. Vs. Santi Yegna Narayana Murthy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)537; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)510; II(1999)DMC329
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. Our learned Sister Ms. S.V. Maruthi, J., has referred this case for reconsideration by a Larger Bench, the law laid down in the case of Golla Ramana Rao v. Golla Chandramma & one Anr., Criminal Revision Case No. 390/1977, decided on 17.2.1978 that, the application of the parents for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be decided by the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction their children reside.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that the petitioners, who are the parents of the 1st respondent, had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the 1st respondent, who was working in TISCO at Tatanagar at the relevant time, in M.C. No. 2/1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ichapuram. The Magistrate allowed the application on merits on 27.1.1994 granting maintenance to them3. The respondents carried the matter to the High Court i...
A.J. Peter Vs. Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD268; 1999(1)ALT382
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in refusing to renew the licence for possession of Red Sanders and also for declaring the action of the authorities in imposing penalty and forfeiting the security deposit amounts from time to time.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is prejudiced towards him and for that purpose, he has been passing all illegal orders forfeiting the various amounts for the last several years against which he has been making representations to the higher authorities but no action has been taken so far. Further, the 4th respondent has also seized certain red sanders on 5-3-1998 pending renewal application and after seizing the red sanders, the renewal application was rejected and therefore, the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the application is only mala fide and coupled with extraneous consideration. Hence, the petitioner submits that the action of the 4th respondent should be declared as illega...
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Thummala Janardhana Rao and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD262; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)447; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)479; 1998CriLJ4450
ORDER1. This is an applicati6n filed by the Prosecution under Section 482 cR.P.C. to set aside the order dated 23.7.98 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam in S.C.No.308 of 1995 refusing to permit the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine P.W.6.2. It appears that PW6 was examined in chief on 16-7-1998 and he could not be cross-examined by the defence inasmuch as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused expressed his inability to cross-examine the witness on the ground that the accused requested him not to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge asked the accused to cross-examine the witness personally. Accused representedthat they want to engage senior advocate and they cannot cross-examine the witness. On this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that since the request of the accused was already refused on 13-7-1998, they have no cross-examination. Thereafter, the respondents-accused filed an application in Cr...
Rev. Moyya Gabriel Dhanaraju Vs. V. Venkata Kantharao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD298; 1998(5)ALT600
ORDER1. Questioning the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No. 143 of 1996 in O.S.No.7 of 1996 by the AdditionalSubordinate Judge, Srikakulam, refusing to permit the petitioner to come on record as party defendant to the suit, the petitioner filed this revision petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the suit schedule property belongs to the Church and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement to sell away the property to the Ist respondent herein. Apprehending a collusive decree between the parties, the Pastor of the Church filed the present application seeking permission to implead himself as a party defendant to the suit. The Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that on third party application can be entertained in a suit for specific performance.3. Generally in a suit for specific performance third parties intervention is notappreciated. It is not rule of thumb more so in a case of this nature. It is the case of the petitioner that the proper...
B. Yashodabai and Others Vs. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Govt. of A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD485
ORDER1. Petitioners who belonged to Scheduled Caste category and who earned promotions from tune to time by virtue of the reservation policy in promotions also by the Society, filed this writ petition questioning the orders of the Secretary, South Central Railways Employees Credit Society, Secunderabad (for short 'the Society') in trying to revert them under the guise of implementing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4343 of 1998 dated 13-1-1998 in South Central Railways Employees Co-operative Society Employees Union and others the respondent-society was registered under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and it is governed by the provisions of that enactment. That docs not mean it cannot take decisions not covered by the provisions of the Act. In fact, in the instant case, the 34th AnnualGeneral Body Meeting of the Society at its meeting held on 26-9-1959 passed an unanimous resolution to apply the service rules of Railways to its employees. In...
A.V.R.K. Parama Hamsa Vs. Director (Personnel), N.T.P.C. Limited, New ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD221; 1998(4)ALT733
ORDER1. The petitioner was an employee of the NTPC Limited. He was working as Deputy Manager (M.E.) in the Super Thermal Power Project in the year 1986. During that period his wife became seriously ill as she was suffering from Psychiotric problem. She was advised to take rest and prolonged treatment. At that stage the petitioner made a request to his employer to retain him at Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project for sometime on account of ill-health of his wife. His request could not be considered due to administrative reasons. Therefore, he had resigned from the job in July 1986. His resignation was accepted by the employer and he was relieved. Later on in March 1987 his wife recovered from illness and became normal. The petitioner then applied again for reappointment. The NTPCconsidered his application as he was a past employee and issued reappointnient order dated 10-4-1987 in the very same post which he was occupying at the time of resignation subject to medical fitness. On 18-5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »