Andhra Pradesh Court July 2001 Judgments

Pachipala Laxmaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)348; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)198; 2001CriLJ4063

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1.This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6-11-1992 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirayalaguda, Nalgonda District in convicting the appellant under Section 306, IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and his wife by name Venkata Ramana are the residents of Huzurnagar and eversince the date of their marriage, the accused used to ill-treat her, their marriage has been taken place about 11 years back and the accused used to take liquor and beat her and the accused also used to borrow amounts from others and failed to repay the same and the creditors used to come and demand for return of money and when the deceased Venkata Ramana asked the accused to mend his behaviour, he used to beat her and ill-treated he...

Bukka Gangi Naik Vs. State of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD172; 2001(4)ALT701

ORDER1. The petitioner is a pattedar of an extent of Ac.7-44 cents of wet agricultural land comprised in Sy.No.1574/ 4-B in Dorigallu village, Mudigubba Mandal, Penukonda Revenue Division, Anantapur District. The respondents-authorities have taken possession to an extent of Ac.0-54 cents of the land for the purpose of formation of 80 Feet wide road from Mudigubba to Middileru Dam site. It is the case of the petitioner that he received only notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition At, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), and he is not aware of any proceedings under the Act. It is stated that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the award passed under Section 11 of the Act.2. On 28-2-1998 the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mudigubba Mandal, paid a sum of Rs.22,453/- towards compensation. It is stated that as the value of the land is not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, the petitioner protested to the said amount of compensation. However, the 4th respondent pro...

Mir Ibrahim Ali and Others Vs. Inayath Ali

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD119; 2001(4)ALT534

ORDER1. The revision petitioners are the petitioners in EP No.87 of 1991 in OS No. 1641 of 1985 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 10-11-1995.2. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in OS No.1641 of 1985, filed EP No.87 of 1991 under Order 21, Rule 34 CPC seeking a direction to the judgment debtor to execute a registered deed of reconveyance relating to premises bearing No.17-6-482 Jakeer Hussain Lane, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. The respondent judgment debtor had filed a counter and had opposed the matter and the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 10-11-1995 had dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner-decree holders-plaintiffs had preferred the present civil revision petition.3. Ms. Balaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the decree dated 7-12-1988 in OS No.1641 of 1985 is no doubt an ex parte decree but however an ex parte decree also ...

Soorampally Venkata Reddy Vs. New Tirumala Emporium

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD311; 2001(4)ALT604

ORDER1. This revision petition, filed under Section 115 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') raises an interesting question as to whether an order passed under Section 11(4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ( for brevity 'the Act') is executable in accordance with Section 15 of the said Act?2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:The Petitioner is the owner of a non-residential premises in Vizianagaram Town. The same was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- in June, 1973, and later the rent was enhanced to Rs. 900/-. The petitioner filed Rent Control Case being RCC No. 11 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram, for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of wilful default, bona fide requirement for personal occupation, and on the ground that the respondent used the building for purpose other than for which it was leased. The petitioner also f...

HussaIn BIn Abdullah (Died) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Special Court Under ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD366

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The petitioners filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in LGC No. 74/1989 dated 12-2-1990 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal, void and without jurisdiction.2. The petitioners filed this writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the Special Court in declaring that Shaik Abdullah Bin Salam, father of petitioners 2 to 4 herein original owner and pattedar sold the property in question admeasuring Ac.4-13 gts bearing Sy.No. 91 situated at Jelpally village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to Smt. Seshu Sarojini Devi, who in turn, sold the same to the 2nd respondent herein, who is the applicant in Land Grabbing Case and the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the grabbed land without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking the possession of the same, and therefore, they are liable for eviction. ...

M.V. Subramanyam and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2001]45CLA48(AP); [2002]112CompCas211(AP)

A. Gopal Reddy J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law, conduct necessary investigation into the violation of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('the SEBI Act'), and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ('the Takeover Regulations'), and for a consequential direction not to permit respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to proceed with the public offer pursuant to the letters of offer dated April 23, 2001, and May 11, 2001, respectively.2. The petitioners claim to be the shareholders of the fifth respondent-company, i.e., VST Industries Ltd. (the 'VST') which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of cigarettes and of exporting tobacco. According to the petitioner, the VST is in healthy financial condition and has been making good profits and also owns several properties in Hyderabad and ot...

Prof. Behara Bhaskara Rao Vs. Sri Varada Venkata Govinda Raju

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALT468

ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as they are filed against the order of dismissal dated 7-7-2000 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, by a common order in I.A.No.387/2000 in OS.2/98, IA.No.388/2000 in OS.33 /99 and IA.No.389/2000 in OS.95/99 respectively, filed for amendment of cause title with regard to name of the 1st defendant in the suits. The said three I.As were dismissed on the ground that amendment sought for in the above said I.As.,, if allowed, would take away the rights accrued to the firm to defend the suits on the ground of limitation.2. The above I.As are filed under Section 153 CPC praying the Court below to permit the petitioner to amend the short and long cause title of the plaints relating to the description of the 1st defendant by inserting the name of the 1st defendant as 'M/s. Kameswari Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner Varada VenkataGovinda Rajulu' in the place of 'Varada...

Managing Director, A.P. Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Limited Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 i.e., A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited against the order of the District Forum, Chittoor in CDC No. 351/1994 dated 18.3.1995 aggrieved by the direction given to it by the District Forum, Chittoor to return the documents to the respondent/complainant and to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 300/-. 2. The case in brief is as follows : The complainant/respondent No. 1 as a member of opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the appellant/opposite party No. 1 through the second respondent/second opposite party out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 60,000/-. He was paid only Rs. 12,400/- out of Rs. 18,000/- and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was retained as share capital and Rs. 600/- towards LIC premium. He did not avail further loan and repaid the loan amount along with interest by 22.1.1993. In all he paid Rs. 19,376/-. The seco...

M.E.S. Employees Union, A.P. Area, Secunderabad Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2002]126STC523(AP)

ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J1. These three writ petitions are filed by the employees of Military Engineering Service Welfare Committee and one of the employees of the Military Engineering Service. As the relief sought for in all the three writ petitions is the same and the factual situation is also common, they are disposed of by this common order.2. These writ petitions are filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in recovering profession tax from the salaries of the employees working in the 3rd respondent establishment as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 288-A of the Financial Regulations framed under the Army Act, 1950 and that the employees working under the control of the 3rd respondent establishment are not liable to pay profession tax under Act 22 of 1987 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to recover the profession tax from the employees working under its controland to refund the profession tax already ...

Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam Vs. Commerical Tax Officer, In ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD76

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. The short question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the activity of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the petitioner herein, in selling drinking water to various ships stationed in the waters of Visakhapatnam Port area to an extent of Rs.78,28,096/- can be treated as 'business' within the meaning of that term in Section 2(lXbbb) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. This question arises in the following factual background:The petitioner is a Port Trust, constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. It is also a Port within the meaning of Indian Port Act, 1908. It is charged with the duties and functions enumerated in the above two enactments. To be specific and relevant for the purpose of this case, Section 37 empowers the Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks, wharves etc., and Section 35 provides that the Board mayexecute such works within the limits of the Port and provide such appliances as it may deem necessary...