Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
K.V. Subramanyam Vs. K. Madhavi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD641; 1999(6)ALT47
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. This Revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-1999 passed by the Family Court, Secunderabad in IA No.388 of 1999 in OP No.50 of 1996. The husband is the petitioner and the respondent is his wife. The respondent, leading her evidence as RW1, has examined her father as RW2. He was cross-examined by the petitioner and in that process, sought to file letters said to have been written by RW2 to the petitioner and his father, by filing an application under Order XIII, Rule 2 of CPC. The said application was contested by the respondent alleging that the delay in filing the said documents has not been explained and that the said application has been filed to protract the litigation. The Family Court had accepted the plea of the respondent holding that the delay in filing the letters was not explained and there was no tenable reason to recall RW2 for cross-examination. Hence, this revision.2. Order XIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure obligates the p...
Pogiri Jagannadha Rao Vs. Gorla Venkatinaidu and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD778; 1999(6)ALT212
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Srikakulam dated 28-12-1998 passed in CMA No.60 of 1996 dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the II Additional District Judge passed in IA No.229 of 1996 in OS No.216 of 1996 refusing temporary injunetion in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit.2. The admitted facts as emerging from the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.1 in the IA may be stated as follows:The plaint schedule property belong to one Gorlc Jagannadhanitiaidu, maternal grand-father of the petitioner who gave the plaint schedule properties to his daughter Ramudamma, the mother of the petitioner, under a registered settlement deed dated 10-6-1950, the registration extract of which has been marked as Ex.A1. Ramudamma enjoyed the properties tilt her death. Ramuddmma had four issues i.e., two sons and two daughters. One of the daughters Appalanarasamma died unmarried and whereabouts of her seco...
Super Spinning Mills Limited and ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P., Labour, Emplo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALT401
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The Spinning Mills, three in number, situated at Hindupur, Anantapur District, filed this writ petition questioning the Notification issued by the Government under Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National, Festival and other Holidays) Act 1974 (A.P. Act No. 32/1974) declaring the election days as paid holidays by stating that day is defined as twenty-four hours beginning at midnight Under Section 2(a) of the said Act and contended that these Spinning Mills are working in three shifts-the first one is the general shift from 8.00 to 16.30 hours, the second is from 16.30 to 1.00 and the third is from 1.00 to 8.00 and if the Mills are closed for twenty-four hours as contemplate under the said Act they will suffer irreparable loss and injury as so much of wastage of yarn material will come if once the Unit is stopped from production.2. The petitioners also stated that while the election hours are from 8.00 to 17.00 and there is no need to declare the ent...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›