Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: medical degrees act 1916 section 2 definitions Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1973 Page 4 of about 39 results (0.097 seconds)

Oct 23 1973 (HC)

ippili Satyanarayana Vs. the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-23-1973

Reported in : AIR1975AP22

..... lower court in i. a. 54/71 in o. s. 61/70 on its file which was a petition filed under o 6 rule 17 and section 151, civil procedure code for permission to amend the plaint.2. in the affidavit in support of fee petition for amendment it was stated that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rs. 19723.95 from ..... applying this rule where, as here, the defendant claims a time-bar under the statute of limitations. in weldon v. neal, (1887) 19 qbd 394 lord esher said: we must act on the settled rule of practice, which is that amendments are not admissible when they prejudice the rights of the opposite party as existing at the date of such amendments ..... . sri k. raghavarao the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since a new claim based upon the undertaking letter dated 7-8-1967 is barred by 5-2-1971 when the amendment petition was filed, the amendment ought to be rejected. it may be noted that the suit in this case was filed on 26-4-1969. he ..... has taken up the plea that the suit promissory note is insufficiently stamped and is therefore inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff prayed for amending the plaint by deleting lines 1, 2 and 3 of paragraph 4 and substituting therefor by the words 'the cause of action for this suit arose between the period from 24-7-1962 to 12-4-1963 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1973 (HC)

Mohd. Hameed Vs. Collector, Hyderabad and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-19-1973

Reported in : AIR1974AP119

order1. these writ petitions involve a similar point.2. the petitioners are owners of fair price shop for selling essential commodities. their licences were cancelled on the ground of certain alleged irregularities. aggrieved by the said orders, they filed these writ petitions . orders of suspension were passed by this court pending disposal of the writ petitions suspending the impugned orders. when these petitions came up for disposal on previous occasions, i adjourned the cases with a direction to the government to complete the enquiry into the charges against the petitioners; but though the matter has been adjourned from time to time, no information is forthcoming as to whether any enquiry was over. even today no information has been placed before me as to the stage at which the enquiry stands. it is always open to the government to conduct any enquiry into the charges and pass appropriate orders. till such orders are passed, there is no justification for cancelling the petitioner's licences.3. i therefore, allow these writ petitions subject to the above directions. there will be no order as to costs. government pleader's fee rs. 100/-.4. petitions allowed.

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1973 (HC)

Sri Saibaba Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Jaggayyapet Vs. State of Andhr ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-17-1973

Reported in : AIR1974AP282

..... that when the writ petition is dismissed, no direction can be given. it creates a very embarrassing position. since the writ petition is dismissed, the authority which is directed to act in a particular way can with impunity flout the direction, and this court will not be able to take any contempt proceedings. secondly, in giving direction against any authority, the ..... advisable to avoid giving directions, when the writ petitions are dismissed at the admission stage and without hearing the other side, which is likely to be affected by such direction.2. on merits of the case, we agree with the learned judge that there are disputed questions of fact which have to be decided first by the primary authority. the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1973 (HC)

Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. B. Ramachander Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-05-1973

Reported in : AIR1973AP309

..... party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents. (2) the court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the ..... before their lordships the plaintiff had applied for summonses to be issued to the person mentioned in the list of witnesses filed in that court. this application was filed on 2-4-1921 while the suit stood adjourned to 13-4-1921. the lower court in that case had dismissed the application observing that the application was made at too late ..... by shankermut. in my opinion the rejection of the application on this technical ground by the court below is unwarranted and this ground for rejection cannot be permitted to stand.2. the court below has not kept in mind the provisions of order 16, rule 1, civil p. c. in dismissing the present application. order 16, rule 1, civil p. c ..... 1. this revision petition is filed to revise the order of the ii assistant judge, city civil court, hyderabad, made in i. a. no. 163 of 1968 in o. s. no. 32 of 1967 on his file. the petitioner filed the said i. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1973 (HC)

Tanigondala Rosi Reddy Vs. Syamala Laxmaiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-29-1973

Reported in : AIR1974AP171

..... d-1) of rule 5 of order 43.order 43, rule 1 (nn) reads :'43 (1) an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, viz., (nn) an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of order 33 rejecting an application for permission to sue as a pauper on the ground specified in cl ..... has filed a suit for possession of the entire property. he would never have filed the suit for possession of the entire property when he was in possession of 2/3 rd portion of the property.4. i am , therefore, of the opinion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire house. the lower court ..... 3. the lower court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner herein to declare him as pauper on the ground that the petitioner has not established dispossession from the 2/3 rd portion of the suit property. the lower court came to this conclusion on the basis that the petitioner has used the words 'driven out of the ..... in rule 7, an appeal shall lie and that the right of appeal is not restricted to rejection of an application without notice to the respondents and hearing them. 2. in the view taken by us we are supported by what vaidialingam, j., (as he then was of the kerala high court) said in avirah ouseph v. ammukutty ..... 1 of the c.p.c. the learned judge doubted whether an appeal will lie to this court when an application filed under order 33, rules 1 and 2 is rejected under cl. (b) of rule 5 of order 33 holding that the applicant is not a pauper. we are not here concerned with the correctness or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1973 (HC)

Allu Appalaswamy and ors. Vs. Maturi Anjaneyulu and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-10-1973

Reported in : AIR1974AP268

..... for withdrawal of the suit.'17. respectfully following the said decision, we find no difficulty in holding in the compelling the plaintiff to continue his suit as against defendant no. 2 although he had categorically abandoned ought to have therefore dismissed the plaintiff's suit as against the 2nd defendant under order xxiii, rule 1 , c. p. c. as stated earlier ..... ;'the language or order 23 , rule 1 , sub-rule (1), c. p. c. gives an unqualified right to a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit is sought under sub-rule (2) of that rule , the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs as the court may award and becomes precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of that subject-matter under ..... after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim. according to sub-rule (2), where the court is satisfied about the defects in the suit, it may , on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or ..... a partnership and settlement of accounts. there were in all five defendants. they seemed to have filed a written statements. issues were framed. plaintiff was examined as p. w. 1.2. it is at this stage on 13-10-1969 the plaintiff's counsel represented to the court that the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 1, 3, 4 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1973 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad Vs. Alapati Mangamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-20-1973

Reported in : AIR1975AP8

..... alienated the said lands, and therefore the plaintiff should be called upon to furnish full particulars. that application was filed under order vi, rule 5 read with section 151, c. p. c. the application was heard on 11-12-1968 and the learned subordinate judge passed an order directing the plaintiff to furnish full ..... lower court and the b. diary we do not find that any such petition or statement was filed by the plaintiff on 1-1-1969 or on 2-1-1969 respectively as contended for by the learned counsel. the learned counsel also, could not substantiate with reference to any record, that any such application ..... been filed. 3. sri munwar ali baig contended that on 1-1-1969 the plaintiff filed an application for extension of time and also a statement on 2-1-1969 furnishing the particulars with regard to some of the lands mentioned in the plaint schedule, and the lower court should have therefore extended the time ..... be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. 1. for the recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties after ejecting the defendants therefrom. 2. for costs of the suit. 3. for such other and further reliefs as are necessary in the circumstances of the case. 'plaint schedules. no.t.d. ..... (act 20 of 1954 central) the waqf board notified the said lands to be want properties by a notification published in the andhra pradesh gazette part ii dated 19-4-1962 (pp 440 and 441;. 5. sri mohammed abdul rahaman and his heirs alienated ac. 13-11 cents in the above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1973 (HC)

Siddareddi Venkata Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-06-1973

Reported in : 1975CriLJ468

..... no. 5066/71. the learned chief justice in atmaram's case : 1951crilj373 observed that if. on reading the grounds furnished, it is capable of being intelligently understood and is sufficiently definite to furnish materials to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention it cannot be called vague. in naresh chandra's case : 1959crilj1501 . sinha, j ..... , the district magistrate. nellore, ordered detention of the detenu in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section, 3 of the maintenance of internal security act. 1971. (hereinafter called the act) read with section 5 thereof. the grounds on which the detention was made were communicated to the detenu on 18-1-1973 who ..... .the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. an act by itself is not determinant of its own. gravity. in its quality it may not differ ..... different contexts affect differently law and order on one hand and public order on the other. it is always a question of degree of the harm and its effect upon the community. individual act can be a ground for detention only if it leads to disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1973 (HC)

Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah Vs. Kalkonda Krishnaiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-08-1973

Reported in : AIR1974AP201

..... . at that stage, the mortgagee decree-holder discovered that there was a mistake in the survey number. the mortgagee thereupon filed a suit under section 31 of the specific relief act for rectification of the mistake in the suit o. s. 302 of 1919. the said suit was decreed as the mention of survey number ..... survey number 277/1 ac. 6-15survey number 279/2 ac 2-00survey number 279/3 ac 1-00total ac. 9-15 guntas.5. according to the petitioner instead of showing survey number 279/1 in item no. 6 ..... guntas. in the previous revenue records the area of these survey numbers have been shown as follows:--survey number 279/1 ..... ac. 6-15 guntassurvey number 279/2 ..... ac. 2.00 guntassurvey number 279/3 ..... ac. 1-00 guntastotal ac. 9-15 guntas. the total area shown as a schedule to the plaint is as follows :- ..... the view of madras high court in (1931) 61 mlj 805 = (air 1931 mad 260) and a decision of rajamannar c. j. in katamraju v. paripurnandam. (1948) 2 mad lj 301 = (air 1949 mad 282) and that of krishnaswami nayudu in apart krishna poduval v. lakshmi nethiar, : air1950mad751 . in both the above cases, it was ..... considered these two issues together. it was admitted that all the properties shown in a to c scheduled were ancestral properties. the defendant as d. w. 2 has also admitted the same. he has also contended that b schedule land was, since a long time in the possession of joint family and therefore they .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //