Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Velpur Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. Asst. Director of Marketing, Guntur ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD625
ORDER1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Gram Panchayat of Velpur, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District and Petitioner No.2 is a successful bidder in the auction conducted by Petitioner No.1 for the cattle shandy or weekly bazaar to be held from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. The 1st respondent is the Assistant Director of Marketing, Guntur, 2nd respondent is the person-incharge of Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur Mandal, Guntur District and 3rd respondent is a member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency Krosur Mandal. It is pleaded that Velpur Gram Panchayat had been running cattle shandy within the Gram Panchayat area for the last 20 years or more by holding public auction. It is contended by the petitioners that by virtue of Section 104 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') all the public markets vest in the Gram Panchayat and it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide places for use as public markets and further more the Panchayat is entitled to collect fees on animals brou...
Gongula Venkateswara Rao Vs. the S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALD793; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)616; 1997(6)ALT167; 1998CriLJ414
V. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. The telegram issued by the petitioner was treated as taken-up writ petition, since the matter pertains to the harassment of the petitioner's father by Vissannapeta Police, thus being a public interest litigation. After notices were issued to the respondents 1 to 3, counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3. 2. The allegations in the telegram are that the father of the petitioner Gangula Erra Gopaiah, aged 70 years, was taken away forcibly by the 4th respondent, S.I. of Police on 20-10-96 and was detained at the police station. It was further alleged that a false case might be booked against the petitioner and the detenu for the discharge of a promissory note, for which they were not responsible. 3. The detenu was produced on 12-11-96 before this Court and on the same day this Court passed the following order : 'The alleged detenue Gangula Erra Gopaiah is produced along with the counter-affidavit affixing his attested photograph for pur...
B. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Commissioner of Police and Addl. District Magistr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALD368; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)780
V. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. By an order dt. 23-1-1997 made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), the Commissioner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Area Police District, detained one B. Venkata Prasad, son of the petitioner, a remand prisoner. The order of detention states that the detenu is a goonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and it was necessary to detain him as detenu with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of 'Public Order' and also in the interest of security of college-going girls and eliminate fear of insecurity among the parents in the society about their college-going daughters. The petitioner made a representations to the Government on 21-2-1997. The Advisory Board met on 28-2-1997. The Government issued th...
Apsrtc National Mazdoor Union, Sangareddy Vs. Apsrtc
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT767; 1998(1)AnWR752
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in proceedings No. 01/287(24)/92-SRD, dated 30.9.1992 ordering deduction of penal wage cut for eight days from the salaries of sixty nine Conductors and seventy one Drivers, whose names are shown in the Annexure to the said proceedings and who are members of the petitioner's union for the months of October, 1992 payable on 1.11.1992 apart from two days wages already deducted as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are that sixty nine Conductors and seventy one Drivers, whose names are shown in the annexure to the impugned proceedings dated 30.9.1992 issued by the second respondent are members of the petitioner-Union. It is stated that on 8.8.1992 some of the employees of the second re...
Varada Govindarajulu Vs. Thayi Ranga Brahmarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT49
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.5/1987 by the Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Srikakulam reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam in R.C.C.No.10/1977.2. The petitioner is the Respondent before the Rent Controller and Appellant before the appellate authority. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.3. It is necessary to narrate certain facts before dealing with the Revision Petition. The petitioner. (Sri Tbayi Ranga Brahma Rao) filed R.C.C. No. 10/1977 on the file of the Kent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam under Section 10(2)(i) and 6 (sic.(vi)) and Section 10(3)(1)(a) (sic.10(3)(a)(i)(a)) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. It was the case of the petitioner that he was the owner of the petition sched...
Merla (Bolla) Jogayamma and anr. Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by the Author ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT1
R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. These two revisions are filed by the petitioners therein questioning the respective orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, by which the plea of the petitioners, who are the declarants, for exclusion of certain lands from their holdings during the surrender proceedings was rejected.2. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. 3401/94 is the declarant in L.C.C. No. 913/KDA/75. After due enquiry, the primary tribunal by its orders dated 25-3-1985 finally determined that the declarant is surplus holder and issued notice in Form No. VI directing her to surrender the excess land which was determined at 0.2363 standard holdings. The declarant accepted the said orders and proposed to surrender the land bearing Sy. No. 201 of Gandepalli village. After publishing notice in Form No. VIII calling for objections and after obtaining the suitability report, the primary tribunal accepted the surrender of the said land by orders dated 3-5-1989 and directed the concerned ...
K. Yesupadam Vs. S.i. of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)621; 1997(5)ALT98
ORDERV. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. The telegram sent by the petitioner was treated as a Writ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, since the allegations made therein pertain to the violation of the personal freedom of the petitioner's wife, by the police. The telegram reads as follows:'.....The S.I. of Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada wrongfully detained my wife Manemma for the last two days. When I approached the Police, the Sub-Inspector is very much arrogant person. He is not having respect towards law. The Police threatened my wife and myself to vacate the house and to go to somewhere. When we refused to vacate he used filthy language Malanakodaka, Lanjakodaka. I will kill your wife or your son or you. One of my sons having some police case. For that person he harassed my family members. My wife is not having any cases. My wife is working Nagarjuna Hospital as Aaya. The house is mine and the S.I. of Police is interfering with my civil right. Please treat this telegram as writ and ...
Mohd. NaseeruddIn Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT90
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The petitioner who is owner of a jeep bearing registration No. KA-38-M-451 filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle, which was detained in Hadnoor Police Station, Medak District in Crime No. 1 of 1997, and under Check Report No. 305608 dated 17-1-1997 in not releasing the vehicle, though he paid the compounding fee, as well as the tax as per their oral instructions and also after giving an affidavit stating that he was travelling along with his family members from Bidar to Zahirabad to attend a marriage, at the time when the accident took place and the vehicle was not being used as Stage Carriage. Having satisfied prima facie that the action of the 2nd respondent is highly illegal, by order dated 10-4-1997, I directed his appearance in the Court. Pursuant to the said orders, the 2nd respondent appeared in this Court on 21-4-1997 and stated that he has not seized the vehicle, but the Station House Officer, H...
Nagumothu Sriharinath Vs. Nagumothu Vani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT209
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner herein who is the sole defendant in the Trial Court questions the legality of the order passed by the Trial Court in LA. No. 769/1996 in O.S.No. 106 of 1990.3. It is submitted that the abovesaid Interlocutory application has been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for recalling P.W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination in the interest of justice. The sole ground on which the recalling of P.W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination is sought, is that when the plaintiff was examined, certain material questions were not asked by the counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner could not explain the same to his counsel. Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C, is to the following effect:'The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions as the Court thinks fit.'4. By a reading of the above provision, it is apparent that when the ...
G. Sarojini and ors. Vs. K. Sri Ramamurthy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT477
ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. The order in I.A. No. 1589/1996 in O.S. No. 315/1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Eluru, dt.27-11-1996 re-directing the Advocate Commissioner who was earlier appointed to make local inspection of the suit schedule property, to identify the same with the aid of title deeds by R.4 and other respondents, is assailed in this Revision Petition.2. The facts in brief are that D.1 to D.3 in O.S. No. 315/1996 are the revision petitioners herein. R.1 is plaintiff and R.2 is D.4 and original owner of the plaint schedule property which is 10 Sq. yards in extent and bears D. No. 220-2-10 situated in Powerpet, Eluru. The case of R.1-plaintiff is that he took the said land on lease from the owner through a lease letter dt.15-6-1970 executed by her husband, Sanka Subrahmanya Raja and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by erecting two sheds thereon. The revision petitioner No. 1 purchased 249 Sq. yards out of the total extent of 570 Sq. yards ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »