SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(AP) 132

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
B. Bala Tripurasundari – Appellant
Versus
Building Inspector, Vijayawada municipality, Vijayawada – Respondent


CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. The petitioner in each of the cases has been convicted under sections 263 and 264 read with section 336 of the Andnra Pradesh municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and has been sentenced respectively to pay a fine of Rs. 35/- and in default to serve simple imprisonment for 5 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,700/- and in default to serve simple imprisonment for three months.

( 2 ) THE iscir, in eii these seven cases are similar and questions arising for determination are also common. Therefore, it would be sufficient if the facts in one of the cases are set out for proper appreciation of the questions of law that fall for determination. I shall, therefore, refer to the relevant facts in Crl. R. C. No. 157 of 1980.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was running a workshop known as "m/s. Kumar engineering Works" since 1974 having installed a 1-75 HP Electric Motor without permission. The workshop was located in Gopalareddy Road. Governorpet Vijayawada, 2 in the premises bearing Door No 27-23-154. On 1-1-1974, she had submitted en application, Ex. D-3 to the Director of town Planning, Hyderabad, through the Commissioner and Special Officer. Vija

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top