Andhra Pradesh Court March 2004 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.
C. Yemuna and anr. Vs. P. Manohara
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP317; 2004(3)ALD323; 2004(4)ALT169; II(2004)DMC512
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The appellants, who are the Respondents 3 and 4 in the lower appellate Court having been impleaded therein, seek to assail the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 7 of 1986 dated 24-12-1991 on the file of the District Judge at Nalgonda, in the appeal filed at the instance of the defendant (who is, surprisingly, not made a party in this appeal), as against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 8 of 1984 dated 6-2-1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda District.2. Heard Sri T.S. Anand, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri N. Venkat Rayudu, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. Initially, the suit has been filed by the respondent herein as against her husband-defendant along with their daughter, as Plaintiff No. 2, claiming for maintenance at Rs. 350/- per month and the arrears at Rs. 12,600/- and sought for creation of charge over the properties mentioned in plaint-A Schedule. The case of both the plaintiffs was th...
Sunder Vs. Mohd. Ismail and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP538; 2004(3)ALD318; 2004(3)ALT661
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 8-9-2003 made in E.A. No. 365 of 2003 in E.P. No. 60 of 2003 on the file of the learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.2. The petitioner in the said E.A. is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the document viz., the letter of consent dated 10-6-1999 from M/s. Modern Garments, Bangalore. The said letter is purported to have been given by the 1st respondent-decree holder to M/s. Modern Garments, Bangalore. The learned trial Judge after a very elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the very existence of the consent letter dated 10-6-1999 itself is doubtful. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of th...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT28(AP)
ORDERDalava Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This reference case is filed by the Revenue against the orders passed in Appeal No. E/2380/1998, and Final Order No. 1252, dated 27-9-2002 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal bench at Bangalore in allowing the appeal with consequential relief in favour of M/s. ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Limited.2. The matrix of the case are as follows :M/s. ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Limited are manufacturers of paper and paper boards falling under Chapter 48. Keeping in view of acute shortage of printing and writing paper, Government of India has issued a notification No. 108/81-C.E., dated 24-4-1981 according to which the new paper mills which commenced clearances of paper for the first time during the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1984 were required to pay only 50% of duty applicable on such paper. The department contended that the five year period would reckoned from the date of first clearance viz., 19-8-1979 to 18-8-1984. ...
B. Venkata Nagaraju Vs. P. Ramadasu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD556; 2004(3)ALT519
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.S.A. under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short 'the Act') is filed by the petitioner in I.P. No. 5 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, against the judgment in A.S. No. 11 of 2003 of the Court of in Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal, dated 28-8-2003.2. The appellant filed the above I.P. under the provisions of the Act, to declare him as insolvent. According to him, the assets possessed by him are not sufficient to discharge the debts, which he owes to as many as 40, creditors who were impleaded as respondents in the I.P.3. Appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and during the course of his cross-examination, certain documents were marked suggesting that he held some items of property. At that stage, his Counsel represented to the Trial Court that he does not intend to press the I.P. The same was not acted upon. Thereafter, appellant filed a memo reporting to the Court that he does not intend to pres...