Andhra Pradesh Court March 1992 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.
Aditya Constructions, Reptd., by Its Partner, Sri Chiranjilal Vyas Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT597
ORDER1. This writ petition comes before us on a reference by a learned single Judge, since it was urged that Regulation 3 of Bhagyanagar Multistoreyed Building Regulations was unconstitutional, and according to the learned single Judge that question was better decided by a Division Bench.2. Petitioner filed an application dated 14-8-1981 for permission to construct 1 + 13 storeyed building, to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It contended that its application should have been dealt with under Municipal Corporation Bye-laws, 1972 and not under Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Multistoreyed Building Regulations, 1981 which came into force on 5-9-1981. It also contended that the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws enacted by G.O.Ms. No. 905 dated 7-8-1981 which came into force on 5-9-1981 were not applicable to its application.3. The learned single Judge heard the matter along with W.P. No. 11818/86 and passed a common order referring both the writ petitions to a Divisio...
Vishwa Shanti Enterprises Vs. Premier Refrigeration and Electricals
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT571
ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner. This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in C.M.A.No. 42/91, confirming the order dated 16-8-1991 in I.A.982/91 in O.S.586/1991 passed by the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, granting mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, directing the petitioner-herein to remove the lock of the main shutter to the common passage which leads to the cellar portion of shop Nos. 1 and 2, at Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad.2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:The respondent-herein entered into an agreement on 19-1-1984 with the petitioner-herein to purchase shop Nos. 1 and 2 and also the cellar portion underneath shop No. 1. When the petitioner-herein failed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, the respondent filed the suit O.S.76/1987 and the same was decreed. The execution petition, filed for executing the decree in O...
M. Dayanand Reddy Vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT566
ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. This petition is to review the order of this Court dated 13-2-1992 passed in C.R.P.No. 2269 of 1991.2. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length, it was held in C.R.P.No. 2269 of 1991 that, Ex. A-3 is not a duplicate copy of Ex.B-1 and the clauses in Ex.A-3 are totally different from those contained in Ex.B-1. It was also held that, since both the parties have signed the agreement, Ex.B-1, viz., the Corporation and the Contractor, the clauses in that agreement (Ex.B-1) alone bind the parties. It was further held that a mere reference to the A.P. Detailed Standard Specifications in the agreement does not, by itself, give scope to assume the existence of the arbitration clause, which was not, in fact, incorporated in the agreement.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks review of the above said order on the ground that, the petitioner is left without a remedy as he cannot now file a suit and also on...
S. Kumar and ors. Vs. the Super Hotel, Lodging and Boarding and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT568
ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. Petitioners in this revision petition are third-parties, who sought to be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit O.S.5244/1991, on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, in brief, are as follows:Petitioners are the owners of the suit schedule property, viz., the building bearing municipal No. 5-8-263 and 264 situated at Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent is the tenant and the 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is the sole defendant in the suit. Petitioners have obtained an order of eviction against the 1st respondent on 27-3-1986 in R.C. 404/76 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and the appeal, R.A. 182/86, filed by the 1st respondent against the order in R.C. 404/76, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, is pending. The 1st respondent filed the present suit O....
M. Ram Mohan Rao Vs. the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT402
Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. This Writ Appeal is out of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 15477/84 dated 11th August, 1986, wherein a learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed for quashing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Board of Directors of the A.P. Road Transport Corporation represented by its Chairman as manifested in Resolution No. 124/1984 dated 7-8-1984 communicated to the petitioner in Reference No. A1/27 (22)/84-PD dated 29-8-1984 confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 8-11-1983 bearing Ref. No. Ea/138(4)/82-PD.2. The facts of the case as emerging from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:-The petitioner entered into the service of the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1965 as Probationary Assistant Mechanical Engineer. For his selection, he had qualified himself in a competitive examination. He holds the degree of B.E. (Mechanical) and has also acquired the Post-Gradu...
A. Venkata Swamy Vs. State Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT264; 1992CriLJ3216
ORDER1. The petitioner was an Officer of the Corporation Bank (sic for short) in the Middle Management Grade Scale II. He is accused of offences under sections 120B, 467, 468, 479 and 409 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) in CC No. 25/89 in the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, at Secunderabad. Complaint was laid, after obtaining sanction of the Deputy General Manager of the Bank on 23-11-87. 2. The petitioner sought discharge under S. 239 Cr.P.C. on the ground that proper sanction was not obtained from the competent authority, as required under S. 6(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the petition holding that the Deputy General Manager, who accorded sanction for prosecution, being competent to remove the petitioner from service, was competent to accord sanction. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Clerk in the Bank on 8-5-65 by an order of the General Manag...
K. Ramesh Babu and ors. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT303; (1993)ILLJ90AP
ORDER1. Petitioners in these two writ Petitions are officer employees of the State Bank of Hyderabad. They are working in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short JMGS-I) with effect from December 27, 1982. They had completed two years or more of service in rural branches which are identified as used by the Bank. They were aspirants of promotion to the next Higher case of Middle Management Grade Scale-II (for MMGS-II) for the years 1989 and 1990. They had completed all other eligibility criteria including one years, service as field officer. They complained against their exclusion from appointment in spite of their qualification, eligibility and entitlement, by including names of ineligibles who had not completed the obligatory period of one year's service as field officer and/or two years of service in the rural branches, according to he Circular No. PER/89-990/43 dt. July 28, 1989 (in W.P. No. 15466/89) and Circular No. PER/90-91/7 dated April 26, 1990 (in W.P. 8343/90) respectivel...
Kalleti Chengaiah Vs. Director of Settlement and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT464
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner for issue mandamus declaring the order of the Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 25-10-1990 as illegal, improper and arbitrary.2. The preliminary question to which this writ petition gives rise to is, whether the Director of Settlement while exercising powers Under Section 5(2) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.(herein after referred to as the Act), is vested with the power to remand the matter to the Settlement Officer.3. The brief facts involved in this writ petition are:4. The Settlement Officer by an order dated 7-2-1983 granted a patta to the petitioner in respect of the land measuring Ac.1.59 cents in S.No. 108 of Akkaramapalli village, Chandragiri taluk of Chittoor district, Under Section 11(a) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into 'Ryotwari) Act, 1984. This patta granted was sought to be...
K. Nagaraja Gupta Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT582
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition, a challenge is made to the auction proceedings scheduled on 25-2-1992 under the impugned proceedings dt.11-12-1991. The objection of the petitioner to the said proposed sale is based on the ground that the property bearing Municipal Door Nos. 14/227 and 228 situated at Madanapalle of Chittoor district, belongs to him and that he is the absolute owner and possessor having purchased the same through the process of the Court in O.S.No. 113/90 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle. The said Civil proceedings were initiated, according to the petitioner, when the fourth respondent erstwhile owner, did not perform his part of the contract. The relief of specific performance was granted and a decree was passed by the said Court and even when the said decree was not obliged by the second respondent, the sale deed was executed by the court itself.2. His case is that agreement of sale was originally entered into on 19-1...
Mythili Education Society and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT109
ORDERS.C. Pratap, C.J.1. fey consent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The learned single Judge, by his order dated 10th June, 1991, in Writ Petition No. 7351 of 1991, directed the second respondent, Superintendent of Excise, Hyderabad to consider the representation (objections) dated 27th December, 1990, of the writ petitioners before considering the fifth respondent's application for grant of F.L.17 licence and pass appropriate orders. Consequent thereupon, the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, has, on 29th February, 1992, passed a cryptic order to the effect that '.....the representation has been examined by the undersigned and that there are no valid grounds for non-grant of F.L.17 licence at the premises in question.'3. Hearing learned counsel on either side and considering the facts and circumstances and the above referred to order of the Excise Superintendent, we find that it is not a satisfactory order at all. Not a single reason has been given in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »