Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-18-1993
Reported in : AIR1994AP57
ORDERS. Parvatharao, J.1. The appellant before us is the plaintiff, a co-operative house building society. It filed a suit represented by its President, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, for perpetual injunction against respondents 1 to 4 herein (defendants 1 to 4 respectively) restraining them, their representatives, servants, agents or any person or persons claiming any interest whatsoever from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defen-ants preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff questions the correctness of the learned single Judge's judgment in this Letters Patent Appeal. We are also inclined to dismiss the suit but for reasons different from those of the learned single Judge.2. The plaintiff rests its case on 4 registered sale deeds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-16-1993
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT378
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the decree and judgment made in A.S. No. 1085 of 1983, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah.2. The appellant in L.P.A.No. 133 of 1991 is the plaintiff, while the legal representative of the first defendant is the appellant in L.P. A.No. 39 of 1992. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 133 of 1991 filed O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share together with mesne profits. The defendant Nos.l & 2 therein, are the alienee and his father respectively. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of his joint family of which himself, his father - D-2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-30-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT280
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 3-8-1993 made in Review C.M.P.No. 7256 of 1993.Theappellantfiledasuitforspecific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27-6-1978. The suit was filed on 1-9-1981. The suit was partly decreed granting alternate relief of recovery of money. Challenging the said Decree, C.C.C.A. No. 47 of 1990 was filed. Pending the appeal, the appellant obtained interim injunction in C.M.P. No. 9018 of 1990 dated 5-7-1990 restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property. Many attempts were made to serve the order of injunction on the respondent through registered post, through process server of the Court and also by substituted service. The case of the appellant is that the respondent evaded to receive the notice. As the respondent executed four registered sale deeds dated 10-9-1990; 14-9-1990; 4-11-1990 and 22-11-1990, the appellant filed an application in C.M.P. No. 6727 of 1991 under Order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-08-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT391
ORDER1. This batch of five Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of suits filed under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. Plaintiff is the respondent in all these matters. Defendants are the appellants in all the appeals and petitioners in the revision petitions. They are challenging the Judgments and decrees of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad appointing sole Arbitrator in each of the cases.3. Though suits were decreed appointing sole Arbitrator in each of the cases by separate Judgments, as common questions arise in this batch of cases, it will be convenient to dispose of them together by a common Judgment. It is not necessary to refer to the allegations contained in the respective plaints as they are almost similar insofar as they relate to the questions to be determined in these proceedings. However, the works, for which agreements were executed and the amounts claimed differ in each of the cases.4. Suits were i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1993
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT32
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This writ petition was filed for a Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction restraining the respondents from determining the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment on the entire land of Ac.30-02 cents in S.No. 440/A3 situate at Kanakadripalli, H/o Itikala Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner further sought a direction to determine the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment only on the extent of 2431.99 square metres which is the actual area occupied by the Cement Factory.2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It was assigned an extent of Ac.30-02 cents for the purpose of starting Cement Factory. The assignment by way of alienation was made by the Proceedings of the Collector in Rc.B.469935/84 dt.8-6-1985. The Cement Factory was constructed and actually commissioned for production in May, 1986. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Factory consists of buildings wherein the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-17-1993
Reported in : AIR1993AP312; 1993(1)ALT409
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma1. When these matters came up before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sardar Ali Khan and M. N. Rao, J,(. a Judgment in W.P. No. 13673 of 1984 dt. 6-3-1990 was brought to the notice of the learned Judges, wherein in similar cir-cumstances, the learned Judges directed the authorities to restore the land to the non-tribal transferor on the basis of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Regulation I of 1959 as amended (herein after referred to as 'Regulation 1 of 1959'). In fact, B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ. took a similar view in W.P. No. 9692 of 1986 dated 28-11-1989. Sardar Ali Khan and M. N. Rao, JJ. were of the opinion that the matters are eminently suitable to be decided by a Full Bench and accordingly directed the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for obtaining suitable orders in the matter. After obtaining suitable orders, the matters are referred to us and that is how these matters have come up before us.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-04-1993
Reported in : AIR1993AP278
ORDER1. This writ petition was filed seeking declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the incentive of Interest Free Sales Tax Loan under the Scheme introduced by the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 224, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 9-3-1976 by holding that the provisions of A.P. Interest Free Sales Tax Loans for Industries (Imposition of Ceiling) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') does not affect the rights of the petitioner to claim the above mentioned incentive.2. The writ petition was filed on the basis of the following facts alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner, which is a Public Limited Company having its registered Office at Adoni, is engaged in the business of manufacture of Caustic Soda and other allied products. It was set up at Gandiparla Village, Kurnool District, which is an industrially backward area. The unit is established at a total cost of Rs. 30 (thirty) crores with the colloboration of an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-26-1993
Reported in : AIR1994AP170; 1993(1)ALT608
1. Second Appeals Nos. 268 of 1985, 832 of 1987 and 378 of 1986 were heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair and D. J. Jagannadha Raju, JJ. In these appeals, Banking Companies are the appellants, while in A.S. No. 1778 of 1984 Union Bank of India is the first, respondent.2. The main point that was debated before the Division Bench was regarding applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to the transactions entered into between a Banking Company and its debtors.3. On behalf of the Banking Companies, it was contended that after coming into force of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'Regulation Act, 19490, Courts are prohibited/debarred from reopening the transactions entered into between the Banking Company and its debtor invoking the provisions of Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (for short 'Act 10 of 1918') irrespective of the fact whether the transaction was entered into prior to the coming into force of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-12-1993
Reported in : AIR1993AP229; 1993(1)ALT458
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. These two appeals give rise to a similar point and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ petitioner is the appellant in W. A. 1161 of 1992. She was born in a Reddy caste family and married an ERUKALA boy, Dr. Swamy. ERUKALA tribe is one of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The marriage took place on 3-5-1990 at Luthern Church in Hyderabad and since then she is leading family life with him and his parents at Guntur. After the marriage, she sought for admission into M.Sc. (Home Science) course in the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, under reserved quota for Scheduled Tribes. Inasmuch as the University Authorities were not considering her as one, entitled to the reservation available to Scheduled Tribes, she moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage by the learned single Judge holding that the marriage is ANULOMA for the gir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-02-1993
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT36; [1997]90CompCas179(AP)
S. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. This company petition is presented by the petitioner under sub-section (4) of section 583 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the winding up of Hotel Dwaraka, respondent No. 1 herein, under the provisions of the Act contending that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said sub-section (4) are satisfied. 2. The petitioner states that the partnership firm, Hotel Dwaraka, was first constituted under an unregistered partnership deed dated August 23, 1979, and that it was subsequently reconstituted under another partnership deed dated April 14, 1984, and that the said partnership was also unregistered. Respondent No. 1 in the present company petition is the partnership firm constituted under the said partnership deed dated April 14, 1984. A copy of the said partnership deed marked as annexure 'A' is filed as an enclosure to the company petition. The petitioner states that respondents Nos. 2 to 12 along with her, 'originally constituted' t...
Tag this Judgment!