Andhra Pradesh Court June 1996 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.
Gunji Bushakaiah Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Comma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT286
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not paying an amount of Rs. 17,680/- which is said to be due to the petitioner under Contract No. 8/94-95 and has filed this Writ Petition questioning the said action as illegal and arbitrary.2. For sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to extract the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition at paras 4 to 7 which are as under:'4. I submit mat I am a farmer owning 2 acres of wet land under the Ayacut of Kothapallikowrugunta Tank of Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. The total Ayacut under the said tank is 400 acres and all the farmers have been cultivating their lands drawing water from the said Tank. The said Tank receives water from Somasila Project through a feeder Chanel. Dut to silting of the feeder channel, the tank was not drawing the required quantity of water. In view of the same, it has become necessary to desilt the feeder channel on emergency ba...
Adapa Chinna Bhumaiah Vs. Adapa Sailu and anr. (Minors Under the Guard ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT477
Krishna Saran Srivastava, J.1. The defendant in OS 18/1979 is the appellant.2. The respondents are the sons of the appellant. They instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property through their mother, being natural guardian, alleging that the appellant and the respondents are the members of joint Hindu family which owns ancestral joint family property, that is the plaint schedule property. They alleged that the appellant ill-treated their mother due to which she had to stay away from him with the plaintiffs from the year 1975. They are entitled to 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property and separate possession. The appellant denied the claim of the respondents alleging that the mother of the respondents had no locus standi to file a suit for partition and separate possession because she was not appointed as guardian by the competent Court. He has denied that the respondents have got 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property. He has further plea...
The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Air Lines Ltd. and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1015
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Appellant/Management Indian Airlines aggrieved by the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 14793 of 199 dated 5-7-1994, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.2. The Writ Petition was filed by the Indian Airlines Technical Assistants Union seeking directions to the Respondent to recognise the Union and negotiate with them before any policy decision touching the service conditions of the Technical Assistants is finalised. Before the learned Single Judge, it Was the case of the Union that it was registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1992. The Technical Assistants working under the Appellant-Management throughout India are its members. The Appellant-Management has not been giving fair chance to the Workmen and the interest of its members has not been effectively protected by Air Corporation Employees Union which was a recognised union. It is the principle grievance of the Union that the Appellant-Management is not giving any hearing to t...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Law ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT408
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the common orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.2054/95 and Batch dated 25-3-1995, the Government has come up with this Batch of Writ Appeals.2. The Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh filed Writ Petitions challenging the orders passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh terminating their services before the expiry of their term. It is their case that they were appointed by the respective District Collectors on the basis of panels forwarded by the respective District Judges. There are no statutory rules prescribing the method and manner of appointment of Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. Therefore, the Government issued executive instructions in G.O. Ms. No. 57 Law Department, dated 16-3-1990 stipulating the procedure to be followed while making appointment to the post of Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in the Districts. Thus they ...
Kothamasu Ramakoteswara Rao (Died) and ors. Vs. Thatavarthi Leelavathi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT723
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants against a reversing judgment allowing the appeal of the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 against dismissal of the suit brought by her claiming recovery of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule lands from the defendants and for past and (future) mesne profits. Appellant No. 5 is the wife of the deceased-1st defendant.2. Respondent No. 1 brought O.S.No. 80 of 1975 as the plaintiff against her father, defendant No. 1 and step-brothers, defendants 2 to 4 claiming item I of the plaint 'A' schedule property (said) to have been purchased benami in the name of defendant No. 1 out of the money given to her mother at the time of her marriage by the father of defendant No. 1. She also laid claim to item II of the plaint 'A' Schedule property with which we are not concerned as the suit in respect of that item of property was dismissed as also the appeal preferred against the same. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement in the suit denying the ...
D. Krishna Rao and anr. Vs. K.V. Nayak and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT825
S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the landlord Under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act'). The petitioners who are brothers filed eviction petition R.C.No. 307/80 Under Section 10(3)(a) of the Act against the respondents who are father and daughter seeking eviction in respect of the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 7-2-612, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. The tenants are running Pathalogical laboratory in the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The ground of eviction is that the 2nd petitioner intends to start business of his own in hardware, paint and engineering goods which is the family business and that he has no Ors. premises of his own except this premises. The tenants have filed counter that the need is not bona fide, that the 2nd petitioner has no proper training or where-withal for commencing the business and that the eviction petition is filed only to pressurise the ten...
Andrew Werner Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary, Govt. o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT956
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. In the early hours of 30-11-1995, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted two passengers - Lackner Warner, said to be a national of Austria and M/s Ute Eva Shultz, said to be a Dutch national - who arrived at the Hyderabad Airport by International Flight I.C. 592 coming from Muscut and recovered 86 foreign marked gold bars from Lackner Warner and 72 foreign marked gold bars from Ute Eva Shultz cancealed in their shoes. Both the passengers did not declare the possession of gold bars and they came out of the Airport through the green channel claiming that they did not have in their possession any dutiable goods. Both the passengers were arrested and two separate detention orders were passed by the Specially Empowered Officer directing their detention under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short 'the Cofeposa Act'). W.P.No. 4678 of 1996 filed on behalf of Lackner Warner was all...
B. Radhakrishna Vs. Mohd. Abdul Ghani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT442; 1996CriLJ4417
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. The Court's misplaced sympathy with a professional's career thinking that in the ends of justice stigma of removal from the post of Public Prosecutor which would get attached to the professional career to the 1st respondent herein should be replaced by acceptance of his resignation from the post which has culminated into a proceeding at the instance of the petitioner herein, an advocate, who has brought to the notice of this Court how the 1st respondent has used the opportunity of delay in acceptance of his resignation for promoting his professional career. The 1st respondent was appointed as Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam under S. 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in G.O.Ms. No. 752, Home (Courts. C) Department dated 5-11-1994. The appointment was for a period of three years from the date of taking charge which could be terminated with one month's notice on either side. His (the 1st respondent) appointment wa...
N. Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT614
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly, one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to notice No. 179 Dated 9-1-1996 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. The petitioners also pray for a consequential direction directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated 11-1-1996 and further to direct the respondents to accept the revised plan purported to have been submitted by the petitioners in respect of the premises in question.2. The petitioners claim to be the true and absolute owner, of plots bearing Nos. 6-3-609/37 and 609/38 situated at Anandnagar Colony at Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The petitioners are stated to have entered into an agreement with a third party for construction of multi-stories apartments. The petitioners having applied for necessary sanction and permission, obtained the same from the 1st responde...
C. Malla Reddy Vs. Shiva Goud
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1042
ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. When the revision petition is obviously misconceived and is not tenable, it has to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.3. The execution (petition) has been filed in respect of a decree obtained in O.S. No. 43 of 1994 by the respondent-decree-holder. It is the contention of the petitioner who is the judgment-debtor that the decree is not executable because the decree has been obtained ex parte. It is also contended that the plaintiff-decree-holder is not entitled to get any relief because the daughter-in-law and the grandson are the real beneficieries of the property in question. Even if the contention is accepted, that does not mean that the decree is inexecutable. An ex parte decree is as well executable as a contested decree. Moreover, if the contention is that the decree has been obtained by the plaintiff who is not entitled to a decree, that question has to be agitated in the suit or by challen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »