Andhra Pradesh Court December 1995 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.
Coastal Papers Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. C.V. Rao Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT54
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J. 1. This writ appeal arises from the order of N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage. The writ petition challenged grant of letter of intent to Vasavi Jute Mills Private Limited (herein after referred to as 'Vasavi', even though it has since been renamed as Varalaxmi Sugars Limited) for setting up a sugar factory, on the grounds that the petitioner Coastal Papers Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Coastal') which had already been given a letter of intent to set up a sugar factory, would be adversely affected. The learned Judge was of the view that the matter was one of the economic policy, there were no mala fides in the grant of letter of intent to Vasavi and no grievance that can be adquately redressed and consequently, there was no requirement of giving notice to the petitioner before grant of letter of intent to Vasavi with the result that the petitioner, as a rival trader, had no right or locus standi to maintain the ...
K. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. the Stage-2 Officer, Kotanka Gram Panchayat and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT451
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. K. Ramanjaneyulu (the petitioner herein) contested for the post of Sarpanch of Kotanka Gram Panchayat. That post is reserved for B.C. Category. The election for the said post was scheduled to be conducted on 24-6-1995. At the stage of counting, it appears, (1285) votes have been polled, out of which the petitioner secured (623) votes and C. Subrahmanyam (the fourth respondent herein), the other contestant, secured (599) votes. Form No. 17 was thus filled in but the result of the counting was not announced. It is stated that a representation was filed before the second respondent by some villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste on 26-6-1995.Thesecondrespondentdirected the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the said representation. Accordingly, on the next day i.e. 27-6-1995 the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry and opined that no case for repolling was made out. It is alleged that without waiting fo...
Sarath Prabhakar Vs. State Board of Technical Education and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT636
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J. 1.This writ appeal arises from the order of M.H.S. Ansari, J. rejecting the claim of the petitioner-appellant for a seat in the engineering course for the academic year 1994-95 in N.C.C. quota. The appellant had appeared for the ECET examination meant for polytechnic students, and secured rank No. 1752. The reservation for N.C.C. sports, etc., gave the priorities as follows: NATIONAL CADET CORPS (N.C.C.) Priority (1) Participants at International level competitions such as International Youth Exchange Programme with N.C.C. 'C' certificate. Priority (2) Participants at National level competition such as Republic day Camp Parade in New Delhi with 'C 'B', 'A' certificates. Priority (3) Participants at State level competition with N.C.C. 'C', 'B', 'A', certificates. Priority (4) Holders of N.C.C., 'C', 'B', 'A' certificates. Note: If there is more than one candidate in a particular group in the order of priority indicated above, the selection shall be based ...
Syed Rahiq Raheem Vs. the Convenor, Common Entrance Mba Examination, 1 ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT844
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. During the academic year 1995-96 the petitioner sought admission to the Post Graduate Degree Course leading to M.B. A. degree. In the entrance test held by the 1st respondent the petitioner has secured 148 marks out of the total marks of 230. His grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner is not given admission whereas the respondents 5 to 7 who have secured lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner have been given admission in the 2nd respondent-college. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in admitting the respondents 5 to 7 to the M.B. A. post graduate degree course and denying admission to him. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to admit him to the Postgraduate degree course of M.B.A. during the academic year 1995-96. 2. On service of notice the respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learne...
Toddy Co-operative Society, Lalapet Toddy Group, Rep. by Its President ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT314
ORDERB. Sri Atchutanand Swamy, J.1. This is yet another case where the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder for the benefit of the tappers, were made a mockery by the officials of the Excise Department and they tried to squeaze monies without authority of law or any basis more so without following any procedure for the sin of taking the toddy shops on lease as per the policy enunciated by the Commissioner of Excise with the approval of the Government said to have been beneficial to the tappers.2. The facts leading to filing of this case are: During the Excise year 1993-94, auction of toddy shops was dispensed with and all the shops were given on lease to Tappers Co-operative Societies as per the policy approved by the Government. In that year, the toddy shops situated at Tukararagate, Addagutta, Lalapet, Mettuguda and Tarnaka were grouped together and the group was given on lease to Co-operative Society on an annual rental of Rs. 26,50, 155-00. The ration for each...
Hifco Consumer Credit Ltd. Vs. Midland Industries Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas502(AP)
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. Both the applications can be decided in the common order. 2. Company Application No. 151 of 1995, has been filed under section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rule 86 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking a direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to issue share certificates in accordance with the scheme of amalgamation in Company Application No. 5 of 1993, in Company Petition No. 21 of 1993. Company Application No. 152 of 1995, is filed seeking an ancillary direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 not to take any decision or give any directions to respondent No. 1 contrary to the scheme of amalgamation. 3. The facts leading to this case are that the applicant, Hifco Consumer Credit Limited, was holding 1,10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in Agrobel Industries Limited. It had 6,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The said Agrobel Industries Limited was amalgamated with Midland Industries Limited-the first respondent. The scheme of amalgamation was ap...
B. Noorulla Khan and ors. Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Transpo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT231
ORDER1. This batch of writ Petitions is filed by All India Tourist and Contract Carriage permit holders questioning the constitutional validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297-A(6)(f)(iii), 297-A(1)(c), and Rule 297-A (2)(b) read with 297-A(6)(b)(i)of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and to declare them as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The facts of the case are mat the petitioners are All India permit holders granted Under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the contract carriage permit holders granted permits Under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is the case of the petitioners that the rules framed by the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh Under Sections 93 and 96 of the M.V. Act, 1988 are not applicable to the All India Tourist permit holders as the rules framed by the Central Government by virtue of the power conferred Under Section 88(14) of the M.V. Act 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and ...
Yeruva Subba Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT579
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition primarily on the ground 30 that the lessee from the endowment concerned has ceased to have renewal and thus there is a deemed surrender of the lease by him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously questioned the above said findings. Before, however, we give our reasons why do we not deem it necessary to go into all sorts of the questions the learned Counsel for the appellant is trying to raise in the instant appeal particularly when there is no issue before us that notwithstanding the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the A.P. Tenancy Act shall apply because the lease concerned has been an agricultural lease, we may recapitulate broadly the facts upon which the appellant has laid his claim and filed the instant writ petition.2. The appellant, it is not in dispute, got a lease for a period of six years of a parcel of land. He got a renewal for anothe...
Rajigiri Gopala Rao and ors. Vs. Boddupalli Prakasarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT27
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.987/93 in O.S.No.196/93 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada by which the Munsif granted police protection as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents in the said LA. filed this revision.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that police protection can be granted for implementing the positive injunction order in favour of respondents. However, as there is no such positive order in favour of the defendants, the injunction petition of the plaintiff was to be dismissed. Therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.3. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in J. Sambamurthy v. Ch. Srinivasa Rao, 1987 (2) ALT 630 wherein, it was held that the temporary injunction sought for by the defendants against the plaintiff in a suit cannot be granted. Such an injunction can be granted only when there is a cou...
Land Acquisition Officer (Rdo) Vs. M. Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT655
Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. Appeal No. 3401/92, 863/92, 91/93, 165/93, 394/93, 402/93, 602/93, 940/93 and 775/93 arise out of a common order passed in O.P.Nos. 33/88, 42/88, 44/88, 1/89, 7/89, 13/89, 5/89, 35/88 and 38/88 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool on 11-9-1989. Similarly, Appeal Nos. 1282/92, 2239/92, 68/93, 73/93, 93/93, 167/93 and 887/93 arise out of the common order passed in O.P.Nos. 39/88, 32/88 40/88, 4/89, 36/88, 41/88 and 9/89 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool dated 13-9-1989. 2. The subject matter in all these appeals is lands acquired for the purpose of restoration of Sunkari Kunta Tank. All these lands are situated in Madhavanpally village of Amrad Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District. These lands were acquired through a common notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (For short 'the Act') which was published in the A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary No. 65, dated 9-2-1984 at pages 12 and 13 dispensing enquiry under Section 5A of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »