Andhra Pradesh Court January 1997 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.
M. Shashikala Vs. the Collector, Civil Supplies and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)918; 1997(2)ALT574
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court (B. Sudershan Reddy, J.) has referred these matters for a decision by this Bench on the facts and for the reasons which are stated in his Order, which reads as under:In these two writ petitions a common question arises for consideration and as such, they are being disposed of by a common order. It would be enough to refer to the facts in W.P. No. 356 of 1996 for disposal of these matters.2. The petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the endorsement dated 2-1-1996 as illegal. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the respondents herein to release the supplies of essential commodities to the fair price shop run by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders in the said shop.3. The petitioner is an authorised, fair price shop dealer of Rajunagar Thanda and there are five thandas within the area...
Yadlapalli Subba Rao (Died) and ors. Vs. Komarneni Venkata Subbaiah (D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT740
ORDERD.H. Nasir, J.1. Two questions mainly arise for our consideration in this second appeal; whether in the plaintiff's suit for injunction was it necessary to implead the Government as a party and whether dispossession of the plaintiff subsequent to the suit created any disability on him to claim the relief of injunction. The second appeal is against the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, which confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.2. The suit is for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. An injunction is also sought against the defendants from causing any obstruction to free passage as claimed by the plaintiff through the Varasandu from eastern bazaar into the plaintiff's site, and a mandatory injunction for removal of the plants planted adjacent to the northern side of the plaintiff's compound wall,3. The plaintiff owns a terraced building in Narasayapalem village. The defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the 1st defendan...
M. Sambasiva Rao Alias Sambaiah and ors. Vs. Osmania University, Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT629
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. These matters involving common questions of facts and law are heard together and being disposed of with this common judgment.2. Notwithstanding each case seeking reliefs by the petitioners, W.P. No. 19652/96 being the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) involving same important questions the determination of which having bearing on the results of the other cases, is being taken up initially. With the representation of several advocates for the parties on both the sides, the stipulated grounds in the respective cases in the form of contentions, counter-contentions, and the rejoinders were, with all learning, presented by Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, Mr. B. Sudhakar Reddy, Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and Mr. Raghunandan for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao for 1st respondent, Mr. K. Ramakantha Reddy, Mr. I. Dakshinamurthy, Mr. B. Nalini Kumar, Mr. C.Malla Reddy, Mr. A Gopal Rao, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Mr. V. Rajagopal, Mr.P. Kamalakar, Mr. M. Su...
Balbir Thomas Vs. Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997AP167; 1997(2)ALT39
ORDER1. The intellectual clash between a research fellow and his guide lead to the filing of the writ petition.2. The petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting him to conduct research at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (for short C.C.M.B.) with 'Lipid Protein Interaction: In Gramicidin Cholestoral Lipid Vescicles and Serotonin 1A containing Lipo-somes' as illegal and arbitrary.3. The facts in nut-shell are:The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Science with Bio-Physics, a product of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He was successful candidate in All India Competitive Examinations conducted by the University Grants Commission (for short U.G.C.) for grant of Junior Research Fellowship. Accordingly, U.G.C. registered the petitioner as Junior Research Fellow in June, 1992. The petitioner is required to take-up research with any of the Laboratories recognised by the U.G.C. The C.C.M.B., the 1st respondent ...
Y. Sai Baba Vs. Rawalmal Narayandas and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT464
ORDERV. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in R.A. No. 140 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 4-10-1980 setting aside the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C.C.No. 233 of 1983, dated 10-3-1987. The revision petitioner will be referred to as landlord, his step mother who is impleaded as respondent No. 2 as landlady and the contesting respondent No. 1 as tenant.2. The landlord filed the eviction petition on two grounds viz., (1) that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from March, 1983 to July, 1983 and (2) that the demised premises is required for bona fide occupation of the landlord. The landlord's case is that the premises originally belonged to late Laxminarayana, father of the landlord and husband of the landlady and it was let out to the tenant during his life time. After the death of the original landlord on 1-4-1969, the landlord and the l...
M.J. Raju Vs. Electronics Corporation of India Rep. by Its Chairman an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT536
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. On 26-5-1995 the fateful day for the petitioner he suffered the impugned order in the proceedings ECIL:PG:IR:10.25:099968:303 passed by the 2nd respondent i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1, the Electronic Corporation of India Limited purporting to be under Standing order 30 of the standing orders of the Corporation (for short 'the standing Orders' and for short 'the Corporation' or 'respondent No. 1). The reason being that such an order was passed dispensing with the enquiry in the public interest and in the interest of the Company as it was inexpedient to keep him in service which otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the Company and the order was to be the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted on the petitioner. The nexus of the crux was said to be his involvement in the theft of a camera of a foreigner deposited with the Security Officer, one Vinaya Kumar on 20.5.1995.2. The petitioner has challenged the vires ...
Prapul Chandra Mukpalkar and anr. Vs. P. Ramachandra Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD569; 1998(2)ALT766
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.372 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nizamabad. The respondents were the defendants therein. They litigated over the plaint schedule property, a plot bearing No.51 with an extent of 355.55 square yards situated at Nizamabad, to be referred to as 'the suit plot'. The plaintiffs sought for the relief in the suit for declaration of their title to the suit plot and for possession of the same from defendant No. 1 by evictinghim and for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by defendant No.1 thereon. The suit was resisted by the., defendants. The parties went to trial on the following issues :1. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the declaration that they are owners of the suit plot, each having half share in it ? 2. Is D1 liable for eviction from the suit plot? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the delivery of possession ? 4. Is Dl liable for mandatory injunction, to demolish the construction made by him in th...
Raasi Cement Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda, Na ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: [1997]106STC169(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In these writ petitions constitutional validity of section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') as amended by Act 22 of 1995 has been questioned (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned provision'), as being violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India and alternatively a declaration is sought that the impugned provision has no application in respect of transactions of sale or purchase of containers which are specifically dealt with under items 157 and 188 of the First Schedule to the Act (or short, 'the First Schedule') whether such containers are sold separately or along with their contents. The writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we shall refer to the facts mentioned in the affidavit accompanying Writ Petition No. 18273 of 1995. The first petitioner is a company regis...
S. Basheer Ahmed and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)816; II(1997)DMC456
B.S. Raikote, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by accused Nos. 1,2 and3 against the order of the I Additional District Munsif, Cuddapah, dated 4.11.1996passed on his file in Crl. M.P. No. 1153 of 1996 in C.C. No. 164 of 1996. The Courtbelow has rejected the said Crl. M.P. No. 1153/96 filed by the petitioners. It is tobe noted at this stage itself that the petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offencesUnder Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 498(A)of I.P.C. The petitioners filed the said Cr.M.P. for discharging and acquitting themof the alleged offences in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ina decision in 'Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India', 1996 Crl.Law Journal 2380, but by the impugned order the Court below has rejected thatCrl. M.P. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this present Criminal RevisionCase.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contendedthat the impugned order i...
Bahagyah Bai and ors. Vs. the Mandal Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALT640
ORDERP. Venkata Rama Reddi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dt.13-3-1996 passed by the Special Tribunal under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (Chief Judge, City Civil Court). The learned Chief Judge directed the petitioner-plaintiff to produce his evidence before the respondents-defendants are called upon to adduce their evidence.2. The petitioner herein filed the suit - O.S. No. 3375 of 1986 (on the file of the V Asst. Judge, City Civil Court) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents etc., from interfering with the possession of plaintiff in respect of the suit land measuring Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No. 129 (old) and Sy. No. 403 (new) situate at Sheikpet village, Banjara Hills. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants contending that the land in question is a Government land, that the plaintiffs were bent upon encroaching the Government land and they were taking steps to sell it away illegally. Before the suit cam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »