Andhra Pradesh Court October 1999 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.
Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. S. Narayana Rao (Died) Per L.Rs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT700
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asifabad in O.P. No. 55/87, dated 22-7-1988, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 2. Before deciding Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requesting the Court to condone the delay in filing the other two applications, viz., under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent and another application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent, it is proper to advert to some of the facts involved in the case. 3. An area of Acs. 10-00 of land situated in Paduthapalli village in Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District was proposed to be acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for providing house-sites to the weaker sections of Paduthapalli village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 9-9-1983 awarding compensation for t...
Col. D.S. Raju Vs. R.V. Narasimha Raju and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD509; 2000(1)ALD509; 2000(1)ALT207; 2000(1)ALT207; [2000(84)FLR728]; (2000)IILLJ489AP; (2000)IILLJ489SC
1. This writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.12759 of 1999 and quashing the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent-college, vide its proceedings Roc.No.Ol/Bl/99, dated 7-6-1999 with liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry, from the stage it was quashed.2. The 2nd respondent-college is the appellant herein. The parties are hereinafter referred to, for convenience sake, as they are arrayed in the writpetition.3. The facts, which gave rise to this appeal, in brief, are :The writ petitioner is working as a Junior Librarian in the 2nd respondent-college. He was placed under suspension with effect from 27-3-1996 pending departmental enquiry into his alleged misconduct of misbehaviour with the principal of the college.4. An Enquiry Committee, consisting of five members, of whom three are the members of the Managing Committee of the College and two outsiders, was constituted by the 2nd respondent-college to conduct an enquiry into the alle...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mahaboobnagar Vs. P. Ramulu and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD523; 2000(1)ALD523; [2000(85)FLR728]
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mahaboobnagar, lias filed this appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rangareddy District, in WC Case No.SI of 1989 dated 23-11-1993 holding that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for Rs.37,041/-.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it was mentioned both in the petition and in the evidence that the Jeep bearing No. AHK 5180 was given for hire to the APCCAD Bank Limited, Mahaboobnagar by the opposite party No.l violating the terms and conditionsof the policy and hence, the said Bank is liable to pay the compensation. To corroborate the said contention, the appellant has examined T. Saiyanarayana 5/0. T. Veeraiah, Legal Officer of the Appellant-Company, Secunderabad, as RW1. He deposed that the vehicle AI1K 5180 belongs to M. Krishnaiah Goad s/o. M. Sayamia, R/o Maliaboobnagar, and was insured with the appellant under policy No.3161150100399 an...
Vemulapalli Rajanikumari Vs. Vemulapalli Sarath Babu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)850; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)275; II(2000)DMC199
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the orders of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur dated 3.3.1999 passed in Crl.R.P. No. 160 of 1996 and the orders of the learned II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali dated 24.8.1999 passed in M.C. No. 42 of 1994 are sought to be quashed.2. The petitioner herein is the wife of respondent No. 1. She filed the said MC 42 of 1994 for maintenance. Her petition was dismissed. It was held on the question whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent No. 1 husband had neglected to maintain her, that the wife and husband neglected each other. It is difficult to appreciate this conclusion of the learned Magistrate.3. The question that falls for consideration in petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is whether the husband had refused or neglected to maintain his wife? The finding that the husband and wife neglected each other does not answer the question which is required to be decided by the learned Magistrate. At ...
Butta Laxman Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Its Chief Secretary, Home Dept ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALT625
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring G.O.Rt. No. 3780, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 21-8-1999, confirming the detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool in reference Rc. No. C1/1384/M/99, dated 24-6-1999 as illegal and arbitrary and directing production of Butta Rangaiah, son of Yellappa of Lakshmipet, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District and for a further direction of his immediate release.2. On 24-6-1999 the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, second respondent herein passed an order in Reference No. C1/1384/M/99, in exercise of the powers vested in him Under Section 3(2)(a) r/w Section 3(1)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, directing detention of Butta Rangaiah, son of Yellappa, aged about 33 years, resident of Door No. 5/399, Lakshmipet, Yemmiganur, Kurnook District to be detained from the da...
Jakotia Plastics Private Limited (Unit Ii) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State El ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD776; 2000(1)ALT70
ORDER1. The above writ petition was filed by Jakotia Plastics Private Limited, Unit-11, represented by its Managing Director, Omprakash Jakotia, to issue writ of mandamus, or order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not extending 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner's unit by the Board, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated 20-5-1996, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus of the powers of the Board and consequently direct the respondent to grant relief of 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner's unit for the initial three years period i.e., 15-11-1995, on which date the petitioner had gone into regular production as envisaged under the said Government Order.2. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's company was established as a New Unit under the name and style of 'Jakotia Plastics Private Limited, Unit-II at Plot No-43/A, Phase-I, IDA, Jeedimetla with the financial a...
G. Pochaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD796; 2000(1)ALT713
ORDER1. These two writ petitions involve similar facts and warrant application of common principles of law. Having been heard together they are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts in Writ Petition No. 19078 of 1996 are recorded for the purpose of analysis of the issues involved.2. The petitioner assails the letter N0.793S/MP-1/HUDA/95, dated 7-5-1996 of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority calling upon him to remit an amount of Rs.7,35,138/- towards the difference of development charges. The established and undisputed facts are as under:(a) The petitioner made an application dated 10-6-1993 to respondent 2 for according change of land use under Section 12 of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short'Act'). (b) On 14-11-1995 respondent 2 issued a draft notification under Section 12(2) of the Act inviting objections to the proposal containing therein foreffecting change of land use as represented by the petitioner. (c) By a communication dated 15-11-19...
Apsfc, Hyd. Vs. Emgee Rubber (P) Limited, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD807
1. This judgment shall also dispose of CA No.127 of 1999 because the questions in controversy are interconnected.2. The undisputed facts of the case, in short, are that M/s. Emgee Rubbers Private Limited has been ordered to be wound up in CP No.58 of 1998 on 19-8-1998. M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short, 'APSFC') is a secured creditor of the company in liquidation. It has to recover an amount of Rs.91,39,263/-plus interest. The second secured creditor of the company in liquidation is State Bank of India, Hyderabad. On 5-11-1998 and on 6-114998, the Official Liquidator had taken possession of the properties of the company in liquidation. On 10-11-1998 APSFC has filed an application in CA No.590 of 1998 for permission to stay outside liquidation. The application was resisted by the Official Liquidator, but on 10-12-1998 the application was allowed and APSFC was granted permission to stay outside liquidation on the following terms and conditions:-(1) That the petit...
Adduru Dasaradarami Reddy Vs. Indian Bank, Madras-body Corporate and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD668; 1999(6)ALT103
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1. These two appeals are disposed of by a commonjudgment as they arise out of a common judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasti, in OS No.20 of 1987, dated 8-10-1991. In AS No.105 of 1992, the 6th defendant is the appellant and in AS No.2740 of 1993, the plaintiff-bank is the appellant.2. The plaintiff-bank viz., Indian Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.10,94,047-55 ps. with costs against defendants 1 to 11. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 to 5 and one late Adinarayana Reddy are the partners of defendant No.1 firm. Defendant No.6 is the guarantor. Defendants 7 to 11 are impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Adinarayana Reddy subsequent to the filing of the suit, by orders dated 3-8-1988 and 30-6-1990 in IA Nos.92 of 1998 and 237 of 1980 respectively. Defendant No.4 died on 23-11-1989 during the pendency of the suit and his LRs. were not brought on record.3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:D...
Prof. Sri Sandeep, Osmania University Vs. D. Laxmi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD791; 1999(6)ALT686
ORDERP. Venkatrama Reddi, J. 1. ThisAppeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act arises out of the order of the learned single Judge in CC No.211 of 1999 dated 8-3-1999. That Contempt Case was filed alleging that the appellant herein violated the order of this Court in WP No.5266 of 1998 dated 27-4-1998. In WP No.5266 of 1998 dated 27-4-1998, the respondents herein prayed for a writ directing the appellant to permit them to appear for the entrance test for B.Ed., (Vocational Course in Education) Entrance Test, 1998-99. They also challenged the action of the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (District Educational Officer, Hyderabad) in refusing to forward their applications to the appellant herein on the ground that the writ petitioners' appointments were not against sanctioned posts and they were not approved by him. Pending the writ petition, interim orders were granted by this Court to receive the applications of the writ petitioners without insisting on thecounter-signature o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »