Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Robba Ramanna Dora Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD290; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)387; 1999(5)ALT128; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)192; 2000CriLJ118
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The sole accused in SC No.72/95 who was tried by III Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant herein and he was facing the charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On evidence the learned Judge found that the charge levelled against was proved and therefore he proceed to convict him and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence, this is an appeal by the accused through jail.2. Prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows:That the accused and the deceased are related to each other. The deceased was the maternal uncle of the accused and also husband of the sister of the accused. There were property disputes between them. About four years prior to the incidentthe deceased had purchased two and a half acres of land from the accused family for consideration of Rs.24,000/- and since then the accused bore a grudge against the deceased.3. It is further slated by the prosecution that on 11-11-1994 at about 5.00 p.m. while the ...
Chinthala Ajay Reddy Vs. Chinthala Venkata Krishna Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD595; 2000(2)ALT402
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to implead the petitioner as the 5th defendant in the suit. The averments in the petition are that the petitioner is the adopted son of late Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy, who had no maleissues. It is stated that the said Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy and his wife Smt. Laxmamma have adopted him on 15-5-1987 and that they have executed a registered Adoption Deed on the same day treating him as their son and conferring all their rights and benefits of a natural son, on him. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit -OS 8 of 1986 seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale entered into with late Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy. The petitioner claims, as the adoptive son he has every right to get himself impleaded in the suit and that the lower Court erroneously dismissed his application. The 3rd respondent filed counter on her behalf and al...
Anitha Mary John and Others Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD712; 1999(5)ALT245
1. Rule Nisi.2. All the writ petitions revolve around the same questions of law and fact. Some writ petitions were filed by the Managements of colleges and some petitions were filed by the students themselves. The writ petitions except WP Nos.16102 of 1999 and 16105 of 1999 were filed by the petitioners stating therein that the students of various Nursing Schools have submitted applications for appearing in the examinations to the respondent Board, but to their utter surprise they were not issued Hall-tickets and they were not being permitted to sit in the examinations. The examinations had to be conducted from 26th July, 1999. This Court directed the Counsel appearing for the respondents to obtain instructions when the petitions came up on 16-7-1999. The Counsel could not obtain instructions and an order was passed that the petitioners should be allowed to sit in the examination provisionally subject to outcome of the writ petitions. Thereafter, counter was filed in which it was state...
D.V.K. Rao Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALT616
ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.2. Admittedly the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry on two charges. The first charge was that he was absent for 140 days during the preceding year and thus was irregular in attendance. Another charge was that he was absent for one day without obtaining proper leave. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from the first charge. However, on the second charge the Disciplinary authority found that the said charge was established. The facts of this case are not disputed. The petitioner though was absent for 140 days during the preceding year on the dates of his absence, leave was sanctioned by the appropriate authority. I fail to understand as to how the absence after obtaining proper leave can become an irregular attendance. The only charge against the petitioner that survives is that he was absent for one day without proper sanction from the competent auth...
Kamal Nagar Welfare Association and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD261
1. In both the writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration and therefore, they are disposed of jointly.2. The writ petitions are filed by the Welfare Association of the 'residents of Moosanagar and Kamalanagar situated on the river bed of Moosi. It is their case that the inhabitants in the said localities belonging to weaker sections comprising of all communities. They have been residing there for the last several decades and caking out their livelihood in nearby places. They have also constructed permanent and semipermanent structures on the Moosi bed. The Government have also provided necessary amenities to them. While so, the Government took a decision for beautification of Moosi river bed area called Nandanavanam project. The respondents have taken a decision to develop Nandanavanam project and for the purpose of implementation of the projects, various stages of developments are earmarked. In the process of development, the petitioners are being threatened with ...
K.C. Reddy Vs. Batcha Vasudevarao Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD45; 1999(5)ALT574
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam dated 22-2-1999 passed in IA No.9 of 1999 in OS No. 19 of 1997 refusing to grant time for payment as stipulated in the decree passed in thesuit.2. During the course of hearing, it was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that the decree of the trial Court was passed on the basis of compromise under which a part of the amount claimed in the suit was agreed to be paid by the defendant and accordingly thedecree was passed on condition that the said payment of the part of the amount claimed would be within a particular time, namely, on or before 31-1-1999 and failing which the defendant shall be liable to pay the entire amount claimed in the suit.3. Apparently, the petitioner herein failed to pay the amount within the time prescribed in the decree i.e., on or before 31-1-1999. It was under these circumstances, IA No.9 of 1999 was filed before the learned senior Judge for exte...
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of A.P. Vs. Tropi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD243; 1999(5)ALT512
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28-8-1998 allowing the Writ Petition No.19522 of 1998 quashing the impugned order dated 27-6-1998, this appeal is preferred by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh.2. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of manufactureand sale of insecticide with its Registered Office at Chennai. It is registered with the Central Board of Insecticides and is having a valid and subsisting Registration Certificate, issued under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, (Central Act 46 of 1968) (for short 'the Act'). It has also obtained a licence under Section 13 of the Act for manufacture of the permitted insecticides. Intending to carry on business in Andhra Pradesh viz., supply of insecticides, the respondent approached the several dealers in the State for stocking, storing, exhibiting and selling of the products manufactured by it. In accordance with the insistance of the appellant, the respon...
Anakala Maddileti Vs. Govt. A.P., Home Department, Hyderabad and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD258; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)348; 1999(4)ALT743; 1999CriLJ4126
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. In all thesewrit petitions the orders passed by the detaining authorities ordering the detention of the detenus are questioned on various grounds and consequently a writ of habeas corpus is also sought directing the production of the detenus before this Court and set them at liberty and pass appropriate orders.2. As the question involved in all these writ petitions is the detention order passed by the detaining authorities under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'Act 1 of 1986') all these writ petitions are therefore taken up together and are being decided by this common order.3. Few facts relating to each writ petition are stated as under : WP No. 6375 of 1999 : One Telaga Maddileti son of Chinnaiah a resident of Chinna Develapuram village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District has alleged that one ...
Maheshwari Engineers and Associates, Secunderabd Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD308
1. This is an application Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties to this application.2. The admitted facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the first respondent for execution of the work namely provision of LT UG 1.1 KV cable distribution work including street lighting in estate area at Mailaram near Shankerpally on 15-2-1985. The value of the contract was Rs.25,08,337-40 ps. only. The work was to be completed by 24-8-1985. The time for completion of the work was extended upon 30-5-1987. On 7-5-1987 the competent authority issued final notice and then the contract was cancelled on 1-6-1987.3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that due to the default on the part of the first respondent there was delay in execution of the work because the required poles were not supplied within the stipulated time. Even so the f...
Mumtaz Khambati Vs. Secunderabad Cantonment Board and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD369; 1999(5)ALT264
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J1. Mrs. Mumtaz T. Khambati has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14-10-1987 in Writ Petition No.37589 of 1982. The appellant is the writ petitioner. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 15-10-1981 and that of the 3rd respondent dated 26-4-1982. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:(a) By an application dated 19-9-1980 the petitioner submitted plans requesting sanction of the Cantonment Board (for short 'the Board') for construction of a multi-storied building after demolishing the existing old building. By another letter dated 11-11-1980 the petitioner addressed the Board stating that no communication has been received in respect of her request for sanction, that this intimation is being given under Section 181(6) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (for short, 'the Act') and that if no intimation is rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »