Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD650; 2005(5)ALT236; II(2006)DMC448
..... to the police against the wife and the same was registered as crime no. 47 of 1992 for the offence to kidnap. both the cases, of course, ended in acquittal. but, it is ..... no hesitation to disbelieve the evidence of p.w.1.28. another important aspect brought out on record is that it is the wife who gave the complaint to the police against the husband for the offence punishable under section 498-aof the indian penal code on 3-4-1992. only after that, it is the husband who gave a complaint ..... to others. the husband was mentally depressed and hence he did not tell this fact to anyone till 3-4-1992 on which date he gave a report to the police, and a case in crime no. 47 of 1992 was registered against the wife and some others for the offence of kidnap and the same was numbered as c.c .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT146; [2000]100CompCas193(AP)
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This company application is filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and under section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, to discharge the interim administrator and assistant administrators and to restore the board of directors of Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter called 'DEPL' as it existed on November 23, 1989, and for other reliefs. 2. This case has a chequered career and an unending story. To appreciate the rival contentions, a brief history of the case is necessary. 3. Company Petition No. 27 of 1987 was filed by Mr. R. Khemka, his wife and son-referred to as the Khemka group. The main contestants of the said petition are O. P. Jalan - the third respondent who is the managing director of the company and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who are his wife and sons. The ninth respondent - R. N. Jalan, the brother of the third respondent is sailing with the applicants. The parties will be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD32; 2007(6)ALT112
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Inasmuch as these appeals emanate from the common judgment dated 16-11-1989 and as the parties are same, they can be disposed of together.2. The common judgment and decrees dated 16-11-1989 in OS Nos. 30 and 52 of 1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudivada are now sought to be assailed in the instant appeals. The judgment and decree passed in LA. No. 262 of 1992 in O.S. No. 52 of 1984 awarding future profits is now being assailed in AS No. 2315 of 1993.3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. O.S. No. 30 of 1984 was filed seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 1-6-1977 against the sole defendant by name Smt. Movva Naga Siromani. O.S. No. 52 of 1984 was filed by the said Mowa Naga Siromani seeking the relief of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule mentioned properties from defendants 1 and 2 who are the plaintiff in O.S. No. 52 of 1984 and his son. Defendants 2 and 3 have been added subsequently in O.S. No. 30 of 1984 consequent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(4)ALT133
..... he admitted that he received notice on 27-5-1995 that the complaint filed by him was false. he further stated:'the respondent no. 1 /complainant (police) with ulterior motive created circumstances in favour of accused and refused investigation of the case, and appears to be hand in glove with the accused.....................the petitioner ..... a-31) stating that the case against the accused was false. that was informed to the respondent on the same day. sri mohd. ismail, inspector of police, p.s. habeebnagar, stated in his final report, inter alia, as follows:'during the course of investigation i examined the complainant and victim boy and recorded ..... the learned iii metropolitan magistrate at hyderabad initiated by her against the respondent for maintenance.12. we have to mention here in chronological sequence that the respondent gave police complaint dated 24-2-1995 (marked as ex. a-30) against murtuza baig (youngest brother of the petitioner), petitioner, her mother, her father, one dr .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(2)ALD(Cri)781; 1996(3)ALT763
..... do so, the sheds were pulled down and the trees were damaged. immediately, he went to his advocate mr. gunneswara rao, who advised him to issue a notice to the police and take photographs of the site evidencing the damage. two days later i.e., on 15-5-1992, the above three persons viz., manohar reddy, vijaya reddy and bangari, followers ..... into his hands but settle the matter in a court of law, venkateswara rao and his men went away. the petitioner lodged a verbal complaint with the police but he was advised by the police that as it was a civil dispute, he should pursue his remedy in a court of law. he, therefore, filed the suit - o.s.no. 464 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD104; 2007(4)ALT164
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9-2-1999 in O.S. No. 16 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, wherein the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for declaration of title, delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits, was dismissed.2. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 16 of 1992 against the respondents herein, with the following averments:The plaintiffs are the sons of T. Ekambara Naidu. Their mother, Rangamma, is the daughter of Pedda Nagaiah. Pedda Nagaiah and his brother Chinna Nagaiah, got divided their properties. China Nagaiah died issueless leaving behind his wife Chinna Vemakka in the year 1938 or 1939. The suit schedule property belongs to Chinna Nagaiah. After his death, his widow Vemakka became entitled to the property as limited owner. The plaintiffs being the only surviving reversioners to the estate of Chinna Nagaiah, became entitled to the suit schedule property. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP80
ORDERB. Sri Atchuthananda Swamy, J. 1. These inter connected Writ Appeals were filed against the common order dated 1-4-1994 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7996/ 93 and batch by our learned brother Justice Immaneni Panduranga Rao (as he then was). All the cases arise under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'.2. A cursory glance at the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions will reveal that a sustained effort is being made by the land-holder Sri Dhulipala Pardhasaradhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the declarant', by himself and through his proxies to save an extent of Ac 3.30 in N.T.S. No. 42, Ac. 0.89 cents in N.T.S. No. 43 and Ac. 0.87 cents in R.S. No. 21/5 in all Ac, 5.06 cents of landsituated in Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada town from the purview of the provisions of the Central Act. All these Writ Petitions sprang subsequent to filing of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Central Act by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997AP103; 1996(4)ALT999
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 27-7-1978, or in the alternative for refund of the advance money of Rs. 15.000/- together with damages of Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant's case is that he entered into an agreement with the first defendant to purchase the plaint schedule land measuring 1000 sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as advance. The terms of the sale were negotiated by the first respondent, his brother Syed Abdul Rahman (R-2) and his sister Mahamooda Begum (R.6) who also entered into agreements to sell their contiguous land to some other persons under separate agreements. The first respondent represented to the appellant that as per the proceedings of the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 hereinafter called 'the Act', he was permitted to retain, 1000 sq. metres in Survey No. 71, Syed Jalal Garden, Maredpalli, within the li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994AP259
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri 1. These three writ appeals and the writ petition out of which the appeals arose raise the same question of law, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.2. The petitioner claims to be a trader within the meaning of cl. (xvi) of S. 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') within the notified market area of the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad-respondent No. 15. He challenges the re-constitution of the Market Committee under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5 of the said Act. He says that having fixed the total number for the Hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee as 18, in G.O.Ms. No. 465 dated 26-3-1992, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, reconstituted the committee in violation of the provisions of S. 5(1) of the Act; in the category of 'gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD745; 1998(3)ALT204
ORDERA. Hanumanthu, J 1. The petitioners who are licencees of the respondent-Corporalion to run soda and pan business at Guntur Bus Station have filed this Writ Petition challenging the tender notification dated 18-1-1998 calling for tenders from the eligible public to run one more soda and pan stall business in the same Bus Station. This writ petition has come up before this Bench on account of the reference order dated 28-1-1998 passed by our learned brother S.R. Nayak, J. as he could not agree with the ratio decidendi of another single Judge relating to the same point in the order in W-P.No.6631 of 1997 dated 4-4-1997.2. The facts in brief, are as hereunder :The two petitioners herein are the licencees of the two shops allotted to them by the management of the 1st respondent, the A.P.S.R.T.C. at Gunlur Bus Stand. The 1st petitioner Papa Rao has been granted licence on 30-07-1992 for running Pan Shop business on payment of licence fee of sum or Rs.19,080/- per month for initial perio...
Tag this Judgment!