Andhra Pradesh Court March 1998 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. Venkata Ramana Vs. Collector and District Register, Hyderabad Dist. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD458; 1998(4)ALT626
1. Rule Nisi.2. The petitioner is a retired Deputy Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of A.P. He states that prior to his retirement from the Government service the petitioner applied the State Government in the year 1983 for allotment of a residential plot of land for construction of a house. The Government issued orders on 19-2-1987 directing the A.P. Housing Board to sell him a plot measuring 233.33 Sq. yards at Santoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad at the rate of Rs.600/- per Sq.yard. The petitioner felt that the value fixed at Rs.600/- per Sq. yard was excessive. He challenged the fixation of price through Writ Petition No. 9575/87 before this Court. The Writ petition was disposed of on 10-6-1991. The Court held that the price fixed at Rs.600/-per Sq.yard was arbitrary and directed the respondents therein to re-fix the market value in the light of the basic value fixed by the Department of Registration for similar lands in the locality and also in accordanc...
M. Anand Rao and anr. Vs. Golconda Grameen Bank, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD800; 1998(2)ALT478
1. The writ petitions have challenged the seniority list issued by the 1st respondent on 17-6-96 on the ground that the position of the petitioners is not correctly reflected in the seniority list- The petitioners submit that they were recruited as Branch Managers in JMGS-I in the respondent Bank. Petitioner No.1 was provisionally selected and appointed on 8-3-86 and placed on probation for a period of two years and was confirmed on 26-4-88. Since then he is working with the Bank. The second petitioner was recruited on 9-11 -85, he was placed on probation for two years and was confirmed on 9-11-87 and was also working since then. Both the petitioners were appointed after selection. It is submitted that when the selections were made, list of selected candidates was put up in Notice Board by the respondent Bank. Two separate lists were prepared, the SC Officers were shown separately and Non-SC Officers were shown separately. The first petitioner was shown at Serial No.5 whereas Petitione...
R. Nagendra Rao Vs. Commissioner and Director of School Education and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD4; 1998(2)ALT814
1. The aged old proverb 'Rolling stone gathers no mass'' aptly applies to this case with precision. Years are rolled by; the litigation continued unabated, yet; no solution was in sight.2. The petitioner's lather fate,P. Koteswara Rao, established Upper Primary School at Rajahmundry in 1932. It was admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 1936. But, however, on account of old age, he appears to have written a letter to the 3rd respondent - District Educational Officer, Kakinada to transfer the Manager and Correspondentship to his son, the petitioner herein, who is already Working as Secondary Grade Assistant in the institution. As the father would have it, the father of the petitioner died on 5-11-1983 which became the igniting point for various disputes.3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father had three wives and had number of issues. The petitioner and the 4th respondent in this writ petition are the issues through the 2nd wife. The application filed by the deceased father dat...
Mohd. Omer Siddique Vs. A.P. State Haj Committee and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD33; 1998(2)ALT453
1. The petitioner's grievance is that, respondents have ignored the petitioner's claim for being appointed as Khaddim-ul-Hujjaj. It is submitted that the Haj Committee for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted by the third respondent on the recommendations of the State Government. The Chairman of the Committee is a Minister of the State Government who hails from the muslim minority community. The Chairman is appointed by the Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India and he is appointed on the recommendation of the State Government. It is submitted that, since the Haj Committee is appointed on the recommendation of the State Government by the Ministry of External affairs, Government of India it is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution and amenable to Writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that the Haj Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh consists of Vice-Chairman,Secretary, an Ex-Officio member, an Assistant Secretary...
Venkata Satyanarayana Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD142; 1998(2)ALT583
ORDER1. The petitioner, as at present, is a Corporator of 32nd ward of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. He also claims to be an enthusiastic social worker. Though elected on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party (for short 'TDP'), as a Corporator, has become a close associate to the local Congress M-L.A. It is alleged that his political rivals with a view to eliminate him from Vijayawada political scenario have got him implicated in false criminal cases which ate triable at various places in various Courts at Chittoor, Gudivada and Nandigama. The cases, according to him, are foisted upon him. Many a time his political rivals alleged to have made attempts on his life, even in and around the Court premises, whenever he was appearing in the Court in connection with the criminal cases pending against him. On account of his popularity and image he had earned good name for himself within a short period of time and the same become eye-sore for his political rivals. According to him, t...
Decent Saw Mill Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD177; 1998(4)ALT128
1. The show cause notice dated: 4.8.1997 and similar such notices issued for the third successive time are challenged in these writ petitions. The questions of law in all the writ petitions arc similar and hence all the writ petitions arc decided by a common judgment.2. The facts are in short compass: The Petitioners herein are the Saw Mills situate within the municipal limits of Nizamabad. They have been running the Saw Mills in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is the case of the petitioners that they do not always directly purchase the timber. But, the brokers or commission agents as per the requirements of the Saw Mill owners purchase the timber from the timber depot of the Government or from the pattedars either in Andhra Pradcsh or Maharashtra and obtained permits for transporting them to Saw Mills. The timber covered by the valid permits arc being checked at the posts and necessary endorsements are made on the permits. Even when the timber is unloaded in the S...
Penugonda Rajeswari Vs. Jaladi Anasuyamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD273; 1998(3)ALT1
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has come up before us on a reference made by our learned brother T.N.C. Rangarajan J., who felt that there is conflict between two decisions rendered by Justice Ramachandra Raju in Nagappa v. Krishnasa, 1971 (2) An.WR 141 and the decision rendered by Justice Venkatrama Sastry in Shankar Rao v. Ramakrishna Rao Hulsulkar, 1974 (1) APLJ (SN) 22; regarding interpretation of Section 10(3)(a)(i)(b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960 hereinafter called 'the Act'. Interpreting this provision, Ramachandra Raju J, observed the word 'instead' occurring in clause (b) should be read as 'in additionto'; while Justice Venkatrama Sastry felt the word means 'instead'. Justice Venkatrama Sastry doubted the interpretation placed by Justice Ramachandra Raju and Justice Rangarajan shared the said doubt. Hence he made the reference.2. Before answering the reference, it is necessary to briefly narrate relevant facts which g...
Jagati Thimmaraju Vs. Uppuluri Brahmanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD404; 1998(3)ALT266
1. Heard both the Counsel.2. This C.R.P. arises on the execution side on petitioner filing E.A.No.467/90 before the executing Court. It is stated that the petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in a sum of Rs.7,877.20 ps. on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kovvur,dated 29-3-1979. On 15-10-1985, the respondent-decree-holder filed E.P.372/85 for sale of the Judgment debtor's property for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,878.15 ps., decretal amount plus other charges. On 16-10-1985, Ac.2.15 cents of agricultural land owned by the petitioner was attached at Purushottampalli Village, D. M.uppavaram Mandal. The petitioner-judgment-debtor was served with the notice of attachment on 16-2-1986. Later the petitioner's Advocate filed Vakalat, but no counter was filed. On 11-7-1986 sale papers and encumbrance certificate were filed, and on 17-7-1986 sale papers and encumbrance certificates were checked. Court ordered notice to the petitioner-judgment-debtor and when notice to th...
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. T.V.N. Prasad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD672; 1998(3)ALT579
ORDERThis revision-petition is preferred against the orders dated 1-12-1997 in I.A.No.396 of 1997 in RC.No.269 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord in R.C.No.269 of 1995. The respondent filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the premises which have been let out to the revisionpetitioner. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application denying the alleged wilful default and he also disputed the claim of bona fide requirement. The evidence has been let in on both sides and when the matter is posted for arguments, the tenant filed IA.No.396 of 1997 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his counter adding para 5(a) to the effect that as successor of is mother, the respondent-landlord became the owner of the adjacent shop bearing No.34 and that the landlord also got issued no...
S.V. Bal Reddy and anr. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD763; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)481; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)79; 1998CriLJ4729
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J 1. There was divergence of opinion as to interpretation of Clause 21 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 (for short 'the order') as amended upto date. Regarding interpretation of Clause 21 of the Order, two appeals were filed before this Court - one Criminal Appeal No.793 of 1995 and the other one Criminal Appeal No.794 of 1995. The accused in both the appeals are the same. The appellants-accused filed these appeals aggrieved by the order dated 17-11-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, convicting the accused for violation of Clause 21 of the Order read with Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') punishable under Clause 26 of the Order read with Section 7 of the Act, whereby they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 100 days each. 2. The case of the prosecution before the lower Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »