Andhra Pradesh Court February 1999 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.
Ramesh and ors. Vs. Laxmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD483; 1999(2)ALT553
1. These three second appeals are disposed of by a common judgment arise out of a common judgment and the parties are same. 2. The subject-matter of the three suits is the land admeasuring 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.143, 12 guntas in Sy.No.144, 2 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.145, 4 guntas in Sy.No.146, 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No. 147, 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No. 155, I acre 30 guntas in Sy. No.249, 3 acres 34 guntas in Sy. No.282 and 9 guntas in Sy. No.372 in all admeasuring 13 acres 31 guntas of Nizampet village of Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The plaintiffs in OS No.136 of 1987 are the appellants in all the three second appeals. The plaintiffs filed OS No.136 of 1987 for partition and separate possession of half share of the plaint schedule properties. The suit was decreed against which As No.73 of 1994 was filed which was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed SA No.654 of 1997. The plaintiffs in OS No. 136 of 1987 also filed OS No.58 of 1989 for injunction re...
Yelankuru Ramana Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ku ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD446; 1999(2)ALT379
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Excise took notice for respondents.2. The petitioner's motor vehicle viz., Commander Zeep bearing Registration No.AP-04-9786 was seized by the Excise authorities on the alleged ground that the said vehicle was involved in commission of certain offence under the A.P. Excise Act. The main confiscation proceedings are pending before the respondent. The petitioner made an application to the respondent - the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, for release of the motor vehicle lo the interim custody of the petitioner. In response to that application, it seems that the Deputy Commissioner caused assessment of the value of the Zeep through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Proddatur, and thereafterwards issued the notice dated 7-9-1998 directing the petitioner to produce the bank guarantee worth of Rs. 1,20,000/-drawn in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool and informing the petitioner that after t...
Modi Rjr Ltd., New Delhi and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD363; 1999(2)ALT338; 1999(65)ECC67; 1999(111)ELT348(AP)
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents to comply with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and to issue a registration certificate.2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioners are the transferees from the registered persons of the premises. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 174 enjoins a duty on the transferee to obtain a fresh certificate. The operation mechanism has been envisaged by the Rule on an application for issuance of registration certificate as provided by sub-rule (9). Sub-rue (9) envisages that the proper officer would proceed to grant a registration certificate within 30 days of the receipt of the application. A deeming provision hasbeen provided that if the registration certificate is not granted within the stipulated period, the registration applied for shall be deemed to have been granted Herein, it may be noticed that under sub-rule (8) every registered person who ceases to c...
Divisional Forest Officer, Nalgonda and Another Vs. Dy. Commissioner o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD551; 1999(2)ALT447; [1999(82)FLR946]; (1999)IILLJ282AP
ORDER1. The facts in brief may be noticed before adverting to the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, Respondent Nos.2 to 9 filed ID No.47 of 1981 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, raising an industrial dispute relating to their discontinuance of service by the petitioners herein with effect from 1-4-1980. The labour Court passed an award on 6-10-1983 directing reinstatement of the respondents with continuity of service and full backwages. The petitioners herein have questioned the said Award in WP No.10790/1984 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 31-7-1986. The Award passed by the labour Court has become final.2, Respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein have filed MP Nos.15 and 20 to 25/1992 purporting to be under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act')- The labour Court by order dated 7-12-1993 allowed the said petitions declaring that each one of the respondents is entitled to receive the difference of backwages of R...
KhairuddIn Ali and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD496; 1999(2)ALT727
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The appellants herein are petitioners in Writ Petition No.1760 of 1993. In that writ petition, the appellants questioned the legality of the order passed by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 15, Revenue (ASN.III) Department, dated 6-1-1992 and the further order dated 8-10-1992 passed by the Government in the review petitionpreferred by the appellants. The writ petition having been dismissed, the present writ appeal is filed.2. The order of the Government assailed in the writ petition is the one passed by treating the communication sent by the District Collector to the Secretary to Revenue Department as a revision under Section 166(B) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. The Collector requested the Government to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement passed on 26-4-1990 and communicated to him on 7-5-1990. By that order, the Commissioner of Survevand Settlement, to whom the matter was remitted by the Government at th...
A. Ramloo and ors. Vs. G. Sreeramachandra Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD590; 1999(2)ALT624
1. This appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3 and 5. The 4th defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The said defendant was given up by the plaintiffs on the ground that he vacated the property and died.2. Originally the suit was filed byEight plaintiffs-respondents herein. Plaintiff No.6 died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were not brought on record as per the provisions of Order 22 CPC. But an application in IA No.987 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiff Nos.9 to 13 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed on 2-12-1994 and consequently they were brought on record as plaintiffs 9 to 13.3. It further be seen from the record that originally the suit was filed among others by plaintiff No.8 named Ch. Appa Rao but his name was substituted with Ch. Bharani Kumar on the ground that he died executing a Will in favour of Ch. Bharani Kumar. An application IA No.1007 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to substitute the name of C...
Lingala Apalanarasayya and Others Vs. Lingala Mallayyamma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD621; 1999(2)ALT643
ORDER1. The order in IA No. 189 of 1997 in OS No.3 of 1980 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, dated 8-9-1997 refusing to condone delay of six years, one month and four days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is assailed in this CRP.2. The facts giving rise to this CRP as emerging from the affidavit of one of the petitioners, who is D5 in the suit, are as under :3. The suit was decreed on 17-3-1987 and that an appeal AS No.40 of 1987 was filed in the District Court, Vizianagaram, entrusting the matter to Sri Boddu Satyanarayana, advocate of Vizianagaram. He was expecting a communication from him, but he did not get any information. While so he received notice in EP No. 172 of 1996 on 30-12-1996 and his enquiries revealed that the suit was decreed ex parte on 13-3-1991. It is asserted that he was not aware of the above ex parte decree till he received the notice in EP No.172 of 1996...
Hindustan Power Controls Tarnaka and Another Vs. Swarna Systems, Ameer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD585; 1999(2)ALT105; [1999]96CompCas622(AP)
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The proceedings under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated against the petitioner and are pending in CC No.137 of 1997 before the Magistrate. It appears from the allegations in the complaint that the accused had given four cheques to the complainant which were presented by the complainant on the same day before the Bank and which were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On the same day a composite notice for all the four cheques was given by the complainant to the accused. It is not disputed that the notice was received by the accused-petitioners. It is also not disputed that within the time granted under Section 138 of the Act, the payment was not made. It is also not disputed that within the time prescribed under the Act, the complaint was filed. The only ground raised and the only ground agitated for quashing the proceedings is that under Section 138 of the Act, a composite notice for bounci...
Referred by Bifr Vs. Chairman and M.D., Southern Transformers and Elec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD289
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel of both the parties.2. In this case, the Board of Industrial and Financial Re-construction has come to the opinion that the Company has to be wound-up. It appears that this order has become final. In view of the recommendations of the BIFR, M/s. Southern Transformers and Electricals Ltd., Renigunta, Chittoor District is ordered to be wound-up. Notice of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Official Liquidator and he shall take into custody or under his control all the properties and assets of the Company. The order for winding up shall be drawn in Form No.52 with appropriate modifications and two certified copies shall be sent to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator shall cause service of the Company as required by Rule 111(2) and also serve true copy of the same on the Managing Director of the Company by pre-paid post.3. Since the sixth respondent-A.P. State Financial Corporation is reported to have either put the property to sale or ...
B. Nageswar Reddy Vs. Dist. Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD205; 1999(2)ALT359
ORDER1. The petitioner is the President of Balapanur Distributory Committee-I. The elections to the Managing Committee were conducted by the District Collector as provided for under Sections 4 and 8 of the A.P. Fanners Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner was served with a notice on 24-12-1998 by the second respondent requesting him to attend the meeting proposed to be held on 2-1-1999 at the office of the D.L. Sub-division, Ankalamma Gudur to replace the petitioner as President of Balapanur Distributory Committee-I. It is the said notice that is impugned in this writ petition on various grounds.2. Section 5 of the Act authorises the Government to delineate every command area of the irrigation system comprising of one or more Water Users' Associations and declare the same to be a distributory area for the purpose of this Act, There shall be a distributory committee for every distributory area and all the Presidents of the Water User Associati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »