Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Dr. Vinod Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD400; 1997(5)ALT609
ORDERP. Ramakrisiinam Raju, J.1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 13766 of 1995 dated 25-3-1997. The petitioners who are the owners of the premises bearing Municipal No. 11-4-660, known as 'Mehar Manzil', Red Hills, Hyderabad which has been under the leasehold of the second respondent, filed the writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, or otherwise, for declaring that G.O.Rt.No. 198, dated 3-5-1994, Energy and Forests (PR. 1) Department as illegal. Consequent on the desire expressed by the second respondent, who is the tenant, to have the premises acquired for a public purpose, the first respondent issued a draft notification in G.O.Rl.No.198, dated 3-5-1994 under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -hereinafter called 'the Act', and published the same on 10-5-1994 stating that 3050 sq. metres of Mehar Manzil with appurtenant land is needed for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of Office Comple...
i.V.R. Constructions Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT828; (1998)150CTR(AP)252; [1998]231ITR519(AP); [1998]97TAXMAN287(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These three writ petitions present the same question of law, therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. To appreciate the question raised in this case we refer to the facts in Writ Petn. No. 10672 of 1997 which represents the facts in other cases. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the CIT, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the second respondent, which was communicated by the first respondent, in proceedings in G.I.R. No. 1-2 dt. 6th May, 1997. The petitioners filed these writ petitions praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the said order and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of construction of industrial structures, power plants, spinning mills, earthquake rehabilitation projects, bridges, canals, mass housing, etc. Consequent upon the raid made on the premises of the petitioner and other persons connected with it,...
Central Board of Secondary Education and ors. Vs. Miss Suchitra Purkai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD160
ORDERD.H. Nasir, J. 1. The main questionwhich arises for our consideration in thisappeal is whether in a situation where anyindividual out of certain examinees who arealleged to have indulged into mass-copying inan examination could be picked out andexonerated from the allegation of mass-copyingby relying upon certain claims advancedby such individuals that his/her school recordand the method and manner in which theanswer sheets were written and whether asatisfaction could be recorded that the actionof the respondents cancelling the performanceof that individual in Central Board ofSecondary Education (CBSE) was illegal anderroneous. 2. It is well settled that in case of mass-copying an individual or two or even more cannot be set apart by holding that they were not involved in mass-copying. The father of the writ petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 16-2-1997 alleging that, not 19 students as stated by the CBSE, but 54 students were accommodated in one examination hall for th...
State of A.P. Vs. V. Vishwanath Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD114; 1998(2)ALT408
ORDER1. Heard.2. Aggrieved by the orders passed in L.R.A.No.1 of 1995 dated 15-2-1995 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar, the present C.R.P. is filed 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that an application under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred before the Land Reforms Tribunal at Karimnagar to reopen the ceiling case of the respondent and declare him that he is the surplus landholder to an extent equivalent to 0.6140 Standard Holding on the ground that actually, the total calculations in the verification report comes to 2.8256 S.H. whereas in the verification report, only an extent of 2.1428 S.H, was shown and thus an extent of 0.6828 S.H. was omitted in the computation in respect of the holding of the declarant and termed this as a calculation mistake.4. After notice to the respondent, the Land Reforms tribunal examined the case records and t...
Md. Abdul Azeez Amer Syed Nayeemullah Vs. Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD172; 1997(6)ALT725
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a writ petition taken on file on the basis of a telegram issued by the petitioner herein.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a tenant in occupation of two rooms forming part of the premises bearing No. 11-6-224 situated beside the Azizia Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad. He filed a complaint, which is registered as Cr.No.54 of 1996, before the Nampally Police Station alleging that some anti social elements belonging to the group of Khaja Naseeruddin and Ayub Ali are disturbing his business and since no action was taken by the police, he filed a suit in O.S.No.1478 of 1996 along with I.A.No.523 of 1996 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for an injunction restraining the said Khaja Naseeruddin and others from interfering with his business or dispossessing him from the suit property. The Court below allowed the said I.A. filed for interim injunction. Thereafter, he filed another interlocutory application in I.A.N...
P. Maheswar Rao Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Krimnagar and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD156
1. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner's case before the learned single Judge was that he was illegally removed from service by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by an order dated 29-12-1989 after he had put in almost three years of service by that time as conductor. His appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority was rejected on 24-3-1990.2. The petitioner - appellant was facing three charges that he had collected Rs. 1.25 ps. from a batch of eight passengers, who were found alighting from the bus without tickets at Muthyampet, and that he had already closed the ticket tray of all denominations against stage No.8. Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him for the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner - appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. But according to the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse, one sided and were based on mere surmises and conjectures. ...
Special Officer and Competent Authority, Ulc Vs. Jyothi Art Studio, a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT29
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No. 7127 of 1996.2. Respondent is a registered firm. It has purchased an extent of 3009.17 sq. yards of vacant site-equivalent to 252537 sq. metres, from the A.P. Housing Board, in public auction held on 28-12-1994 for a consideration of Rs. 37,67,330/-. On receipt of consideration, the A.P. Housing Board, represented by its Estate Officer, executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 677/95 dated 24-2-1995 in favour of respondent-firm, and accordingly, possession was delivered.3. The respondent-firm, with a view to construct a Cinema Theatre in the above plot of land, approached several authorities, including Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), seeking 'No Objection Certificate'. The HUDA while endorsing 'No Objection', through its letter dated 9-1-1996, im...
Periyaswamy Sangi and anr. Vs. State Through Public Prosecutor, High C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)743; 1997(5)ALT718
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The accused-appellants herein were tried by the III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada in Sessions Case No. 300 of 94 for the offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. On evidence the learned Judge found that no offence disclosed against both the appellants punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. But the learned Judge came to the conclusion that accused No. 1 was guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 304, Part II, IPC and therefore the said accused-appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six years. The Judge further found that accused No. 2 was guilty of an offence punishable Under Section 324, I.P.C. and therefore convicted him and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellants have approached this Court in appeal on vari...
Karra Swaminarayana Vs. Registrar (Management) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT296
S. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioner questions the proceedings in Roc. No. 455/96, C. II/1 dated 5-11-1996 issued by the 1st respondent, wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the proceedings dated 13-6-1996 of the 2nd respondent i.e., the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad removing him from service. He was working as Attender in V. Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Hyderabad when the removal order was made.2. The petitioner contends that the charge against him was not proved by any evidence on record and that the appellate authority failed to see that the findings given by the 2nd respondent were not based on any evidence and that no reasonable person could come to the said findings on the basis of the evidence on record. He also contends that the appellate authority failed to see that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer were based on surmises and conjectures and not on any evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, ...
Deepak Galvanising and Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT640
R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. These two arbitration applications are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in connection with the two separate contract works entered into between them. 2. The petitioner in both the applications is M/s. Deepak Galvanising and Engineering Industries Private Limited, Secunderabad and the respondents relate to the Department of Telecommunications, the 1st respondent being the Government of India, represented by Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi and the 2nd respondent being the Director General, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner company undertook the work of fabrication and structuring of Micro Wave Towers as required by the Telecommunications Department. The Telecommunications Department issued Notification dated 27-7-1992 inviting tenders for the manufact...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »