Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Rajulapati Venkateswara Rao Vs. District Collector, Krishna Dist. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD104; 2000(1)ALT757
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamusdeclaring the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25-9-1998 and the consequential show-cause notice dated 26-11-1998 and also the resultant resolution passed by the third respondent on 3-12-1998 as illegal and void and consequentially direct the fourth respondent not to construct a poultry farm in RS No.278/1 of Ayyanki village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.2. It is stated that the petitioner is the Vice-President of Ayyanki Gram Panchayat. The fourth respondent filed an application on 10-9-1997 for sanction of the plans before the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, Ayyanki for the construction of a poultry sheds. The said application was rejected by the Gram Panchayat by its resolution dated 12-6-1998 as the establishment of the poultry farm would be the source of air as well as noise pollution to the residents of the village. It is further stated that the first respondent without hearing any...
Mandavilli Sujatha Vs. Baratam Vykuntarao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD237; 2000(1)ALT216
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam dated 18-8-1999 passed in un-numbered 1A filed in OS No.110 of 1996.3. The learned Counsel for both sides agreed that the petition may be heard and disposed of on merits at the admission stage.4. Curiously the IA in which the impugned order is passed does not seem to have been numbered in the Court below. It is difficult to appreciate why it was not numbered.5. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff decree holder in OS No. 110 of 1996. Adecree in his favour was passed for specific performance of contract of sale of certain property. The decree provided that the plaintiff-decree holder shall pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-within a period of 15 days and thereupon the defendant-judgment debtors shall execute the registered sale deed within a month.6. It appears that the decretal-holder(Plaintiff) was unable to deposit the balance of sale ...
Ganji Chandraiah Vs. F.E. Dinshaw (P) Ltd., Bombay
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD270; 2000(1)ALT80
ORDER1. These three civil revision petitions arise out of two applications filed by the judgment debtors for appointment of a Commissioner to identify the property possession of which is sought by the decree holder in execution of the decree passed in OS No.143 of 1979 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The respondent herein filed the said suit OS No.143 of 1979 against the petitioners herein for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property comprising an extent of 1192 Sq.yds., forming part of 1762 Sq.yds., of land situated in Jafferbagh, Khairatabad, Hyderabad within the specified boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. The said suit was filed on the allegations that the said extent of 1762 sq.yds. was allotted to the respondents by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in CS No. 14 of 1958, that in pursuance of the said orders,the Receiver-cum-Commissioner delivered vacant possession of the said property to the respondent on 12-4-1973...
Polisetty Gurumurthy Vs. Meda Venkatachalamaiah Setty and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD293; 2000(1)ALT295
1. This second appeal involves an interesting question of lawregarding the application of the provisions of the AP Act No.7 of 1977 vis-a-vis the Provincial Insolvency Act. The second appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage deed dated 24-5-1967 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for a principal amount of Rs.5,000/-. The suit was instituted in the year 1977. Long before the institution of the suit i.e., on 1-9-1972, the first defendant-mortgagor filed IP 13 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madanapalle for adjudging him as an insolvent On 31-7-1974, the official receiver was appointed as interim receiver to take possession of the properties of the first defendant and ultimately an order adjudging the first defendant as insolvent was passed on 25-1-1975. In the course of the administration of the estate of the insolvent, the official receiver sold the mortgaged property which is a residential house belonging to the insolvent in Marc...
P. Ramachandraiah Vs. Government of A.P. Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD347; 2000(1)ALT772
1. The petitioner is the elected President of Mandal Parishad, Kulcharam, approached this Court in a very peculiar circumstance. The respondents 3 to 7 served notice under Rule 2 of the Rules read with Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for brevity). These Rules, which govern the passing of No Confidence Motions, are made by the Government under Section 268 read with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 of the Act. Be that as it may, the notice in Form No.II, along with a copy of the resolution, expressing want of confidence was served on the second respondent on 22-10-1999. After receiving the same, as required under Rule 3, the second respondent sent notices in Form No.V, enclosing a copy of the proposed resolution, informing the respondents 3 to 7 and other members of the Mandal Parishad that a meeting shall be held on 17-11-1999 for considering the Motion of No Confidence given by the respondents 3 to 7. It is now alleged that on 27-10-1999 itself the res...
K. Srinivasan and others Vs. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Sec' ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD209; 2000(1)ALT353
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This is a taken up writ petition on the basis of a representation sent by the residents of Krishnapuri Colony, West Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad. The said writ petition is taken up as Public Interest Litigation. The contents of the representation are as follows:The petitioners are the residents of Krishnapuri Colony, West Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad, which comes under the jurisdiction of Secunderabad Cantonment. It is alleged that M/s. Kartik Constructions of West Maredpalli (2nd respondent) constructed 27 flats multi-storied complex, opposite to their houses without making a provision for septic tanks. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent constructed 27 flats though the cantonment authorities had accorded permission for construction of 10 flats only. Thus the said construction is an unauthorised one. Due to the absence of septic tanks, raw faecal matter is being let in to the adjacent open rain water drain due to which the petitioners are experienci...
S.N. Jalandhar and anr. Vs. K. Sandhya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT716
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The revision petitioners assail the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, in E.A. No. 32/1998 in E.P. No. 36/1995 in R.C. No. 197/1987. The first respondent herein filed E.A. No. 32/1998. The facts inter alia in a narrow compass are as follows. 2. The first respondent herein filed R.C. No. 197/1987 seeking eviction of the second respondent herein. R.C. No. 197/1987 was allowed while ordering eviction. Appeal filed thereon and also the revision petition filed before the High Court have been disposed of. Eventually the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller was confirmed. Then the first respondent sought to evict the second respondent by filing E.P. No. 36/1995. When the Bailiff of the Court went to carry out the order, there was an obstruction from the revision petitioners and therefore, the warrant could not be executed. The first respondent herein, therefore, filed the petition under Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Bui...
Apsrtc and anr. Vs. P. Bala Tripura Sundari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT463
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This application is filed to review my order dated 30-09-1999 by raising the following grounds: In the above order it is mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any stay orders with regard to reduction of height for women candidates for appointment to the post of Conductors, though the Supreme Court granted stay of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1055/97. 3. In the light of the submission made by the Counsel, that portion of the judgment is deleted. 4. Nextly, it is contended that the dependant of the deceased employee can be considered for appointment to the posts of driver, conductor, cleaner or sweeper only on compassionate grounds, but not for any other post. In support of her contention she produced a bunch of circulars issued by the respondent-Corporation from time to time. I need not refer to all the circulars as the issue is clinched by Circular No. PD-64/ 1988, dated 13-07-1988 only. In this Circular the Corporation specified the posts f...
P. Dharma Reddy Vs. B. Vijayalaxmi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD303; 2000(1)ALT99
ORDER1. This second appeal by the defendant-tenant arises out of a suit field by his landlord against him for ejectment and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The tenancy is admitted and there is also not much controversy about the facts. The suit premises was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant for running a tutorial collegeinitially for a period of 11 months under a rental agreement dated 1-5-1987 marked as Ex.B3. The lease was renewed for a further period of 11 months under Ex.B2 dated 1-7-1988. It was again renewed for another period of 11 months under Ex.A1 dated 1-7-1989 on a monthly rental of Rs.1,300/-. On 27-8-1990 the plaintiff issued a quit notice marked as Ex.A2 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-9-1990 and filed the suit on 8-11-1990.2. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit was field only with a view to harass him and coerce him to increase the rent and the defendant is prepared to increase t...
Buddana Subba Rao Vs. Maring Tatalu @ Muniyya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALT798
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree of learned Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem in OS. No. 477 of 1994.2. The petitioner is the defendant. Plaintiff filed the suit Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking the possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for a long time and however on 29-10-1986 they were dispossessed without any authority of law. Therefore, they sought for judgment and decree for repossession of the suit schedule property. The matter was contested by the defendant. However, the lower Court basing on the pleadings available on record framed the following issues:(i) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties?(ii) Whether the suit is not in proper form?(iii) Whether the valuation and Court fee paid are not correct?(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »