Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Gadi Koppula Rajamauli Vs. Election Tribunal, (Senior Civil Judge), Ad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD342; 2000(3)ALT31
ORDERVaman Rao, J1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad dated 6-8-1998 passed in OP No.25 of 1996 deciding the additional issue holding that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 233 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1990 read with Rule 2 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1995 filed by the petitioner who was defeated in the election.2. The facts relating to the petition fall in a narrow ambit and may be stated briefly as follows :As per the averments in the petition, under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Zilla Parishad was constituted for Adilabad District with its headquarters at Adilabad. Adilabad District was divided into territorial constituencies for election of members to the Zilla Parishad. One such Zilla Parishad Territorial Constit...
A. Sudarshan Vs. State of A.P., Through the Secretary Law (Courts) Dep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD430; 1999(3)ALT509
ORDER1. All these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as thesame question arises for consideration in all these writ petitions.2. The dispute relates to the appointment of Law Officers in Nizamabad District. The mode, method and procedure adopted by the learned District and Sessions Judge is assailed in this batch of writ petitions. All the petitioners herein are practising Advocates in various Courts in Nizamabad District. According to them, they are vitally interested in upholding the dignity of the members of the Bar. All the petitioners are unanimous in asserting that no member of the Bar should solicit work from any client including the Government. According to them no Advocate should make any application to whatsoever authority seeking appointment as the Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assistant Government Pleader etc., as the case may be. Such applications, according to them, would amount to soliciting the work from the Gover...
Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Nirmal and Others Vs. C. Shankar an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD363; 2000(3)ALT1
ORDERVaman Rao, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13-6-1997 passed in WP No.4769 of 1997.2. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the Government would disclose that the order under appeal is challenged on the basis of error in respect of finding of fact. Another ground taken is that proper opportunity was not given to the appellants for filing objections to the petition by way of counter in the writ petition.3. The facts leading to filing of this appeal may be stated, briefly, as follows:The petitioners are the owners of the respective lands situated in Pedda Thimmapur village. As disclosed in theaffidavit of one of the petitioners filed for himself and on behalf of the other petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been in possession of their respective lands till they were dispossessed from those lands on 10-8-1971 for the purpose of restoration of Peddacheruvu tank. The petitioners met their local MLA and other co...
Meda Narsimhulu Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD422; 1999(3)ALT330
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Scheme framed by the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh under Section 11(10) of the said Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator for resolving the disputes and claims arising out of theAgreement dated 1-9-1982 entered into between the applicant and the 1st respondent for the construction of the buildings for the 2nd respondent-Institution. The Agreement contains an arbitration clause (No.8) read with clause 30 of the general conditions of the contract. Under the arbitration clause, the Director General. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi is named as sole Arbitrator and if he is unable or unwilling to act, a person appointed by him shall be the sole Arbitrator. The applicant by his letter dated 13-12-1996 addressed to the 2nd respondent sought reference of the dispute for arbitration. This was preceded by several letters starting from April, 1995 claiming the amou...
K. Pothuraju @ Kalyanam Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Depa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD473; 1999(3)ALT366
ORDERVaman Rao, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli in a petition filed under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the CPC') with a prayer for declaring the said order as illegal; and a direction or a writ for setting aside the said order. Incidentally, they seek a declaration that Section 144 of the CPC will not be applicable to the proceedings underthe Land Acquisition Act and that consequently Revenue Recovery Act is also not applicable.2. Shorn of irrelevant details stated in the affidavit of the petitioners, the facts germane to this writ petitions may be stated as follows :(i) The petitioners' lands were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Yeleru Left Main Canal for which purpose the Government had acquired more than 3000 acres of land. Aggrieved by the Award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners along with others sought reference under Section 18...
Gurram Rami Reddy and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD328; 2000(3)ALT117
ORDERVaman Rao, J 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgment in LGC No.34 of 1996 dated 29-10-1997 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad (for short 'the Special Court') and quash the same.2. The writ petitioners 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2 in LGC No.34 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court. Respondent No.2 in this writ petition is the petitioner before the Special Court. Respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.3 in the said LGC.3. A brief resume of facts culminating in filing of this writ petition may be given as follows :Respondent No.2 herein filed a petition before the Special Court asserting that she isthe owner of the property of a house plot bearing No. 19 admeasuring 400 square yards in Survey No.50 of Sahebnagar village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. She traces her title and possession through pur...
Manepalli Anjaneyulu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD517; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)806; 1999(3)ALT632; 1999CriLJ4375
1. Criminal Appeal No.1220 of 1997 has been filed by A2. Criminal Appeal No.1221 of 1997 by A4 and A5, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 1997 by A3 and A6 and Criminal Appeal No. 1733 of 1997 by A7.2. A1 to All faced trial on eight charges in Sessions Case No.11 of 1991 on the file of the Sessions Court, West Godavari at Eluru. A1 and A8 to All have been acquitted of all the charges. A1 to A11 were also acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B read with Section 302 IPC.3. A3 to A7 were convicted for the offence under Section 395 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A3 to A7 have been found guilty under Section 396 IPC but no separate sentence has been imposed. A3 is found guilty of the offence under Section 394 IPC. But no separate sentence has been imposed. A2 has been found guilty of the offence under Section 396 IPC read with Section 114 IPC a...
Flag Officer, Commanding-in-chief, Eastern Naval Command and Others Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD241; 1999(4)ALT711
ORDERVaman Rao, J 1. This appeal has been filed against the interim order originally passed by the learned single Judge at admission stage, which later was made absolute by the orders of the said Court dated 30-3-1998 passed in WV MP No. 1971 of 1997. Under the interim order dated 22-11-1996, orders of demolition issued by the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, first respondent (in the writ petition), contained in his letter No. AO/0177/NOC/SDC, dated 16-8-1996, in respect of the building of the petitioner, was suspended. It was, however, directed that the petitioner shall not commence commercial production or effect any further constructions to the Milk Powder Plant. 2. It is this order which is challenged in Writ Appeal No.964 of 1998. When this writ appeal came up for hearing, it was pointed out that a Commissioner was appointed by the learned single Judge who filed his report. Considering this, the writ petition itself was directed to be posted for liearing. In view of the fact that...
K. Venkata Raju Vs. Govt. of A.P. Revenue (Endts.-i) Dept., Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD291; 1999(4)ALT297
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is an Executive Officer Grade-1 of Sri VallidevasenaSametha Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple, Singarayapalem, Krishna district. It is stated in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of (WP No.31388/1997) that while he was working as Executive Officer as above mentioned, the Commissioner of Endowments by his order in Rc.V2/31390/ 96-1, dated 23-11-1996 has suspended him pending enquiry into the charges. Questioning the said order he filed OA No.7979/1996 contending that the 1st Respondent namely the Commissioner ofEndowments has no power to suspend him as he was appointed as Executive Officer before 1977. It is stated that the Endowment Commissioner has power to suspend the Executive Officer under A.P. Executive Officers Disciplinary (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1977. But the petitioner could not have been suspended under these rules as they came into force in the year 1977. The order dated 23-11-1996 passed by the ...
Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALT474
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 34849 and 35775 of 1997 have been filed challenging the common order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O. A. Nos. 219 and 1267 of 1997 respectively, whereas, Writ Petition No. 6758 of 1998 has been filed questioning the orders passed in V.M.A. No. 448 of 1997 in O.A. No. 1670/97 for not vacating the interim orders passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents not to consider the claim of the 4th respondent therein (the petitioner herein) who was a promotee on the basis of seniority given in G.O.Ms. No. 201 dated 23-5-1994 which was passed regularising the services of the petitioner herein with effect from the date of his promotion.2. The petitioner (Sri Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan) in W.P. No. 34849 of 1997 and the petitioner (Sri G. Narasimham) in W.P. No. 35775 of 1997 were originally appointed as police constables in Andhra Pradesh Police Service. Considering their meritorious service, they were appointed as out of senior...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »