Andhra Pradesh Court January 2000 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.
Rambagh Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Joint Collector, R.R. Distt., Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD433; 2000(3)ALT774
ORDER1. The petitioners, who are 10 in number, filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, made on 22-1-1997 in Case No.D5/5347/94.2. The petitioners are residents of Petbasheerbad village, Quthbullahpur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners 6, 7 and 10 are the original assignees and petitioners 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the legal heirs of some other original assignees. Their case is that they, along with another 35 persons of their village who are landless poor persons, were assigned agricultural land to the extent of Ac.3.23 guntas each in Survey No.25/1 of Petbasheerbad village, Quthbullapur Mandal, in the year 1955 by the then Tahsildar, Medchal taluk and the names of the assignees were shown as pattadars and possessors in the Pahani till the year 1983-84. Thereafter their names were deleted and the names of some others people were entered in the revenue records. Having realised the said fact, the petitioners fil...
Sree Rama Traders, Kakinada Vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD439; 2000(2)ALT337
ORDER1. Sree Rama Traders, Chittoorivari Street, Kakinada seeks a declaration that the petitioner being the second purchaser is not liable to pay market fee on the agricultural produce (Forest produce) purchased from the Girijan Co-operative Corporation in view of the said Corporation which is primarily liable being exempted from levy in view of the orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.94, dated 15-2-1989.2. The petitioner is a licensee under the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia doing business in certain commodities notified as agricultural produce. The petitioner during the course of business purchased items such as Tamarind from the Girijan Co-operative Corporation. The 1st respondent -Agricultural Market Committee by its letter dated 13-7-1998 issued the petitioner a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to obtain licence under Section 7(1) of the Act and Rule 48 of the AP (Agricultural Produce a...
Deka Venkatrmi Reddy Vs. Central Bank of India, Ongole
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD565; 2000(3)ALT408
1. The appellant, who is defendant No. 1 in OS No.l 14 of 1991 has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole, dated 7-2-1994 in CFR No.8415 of 1993 in OS No.l 14 of 1991 in dismissing the application of the appellant which was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parts decree dated 6-8-1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The said suit was posted to 15-6-1993 for his evidence. The plaintiffs evidence was closed on 24-2-1993 and the matter was adjourned for the evidence of defendants to 10-3-1993, 23-3-1993 and 12-4-1993. Since the defendant did not adduce any evidence, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 22-4-1993 and from 22-4-1993 the suit was adjourned on payment of costs to 15-6-1993. Since the officer was on casual leave on 15-6-1993, it was adjourned to 29-6-1993. On 29-6-1993, the defendant neith...
Makkariya Cotton and Oil Trading Company Vs. Transmission Corporation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT192
ORDERI. Venkatanarayana, J.1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the proceedings of the second respondent in Letter No. SE/OP/ SAO/HT/D.No. dated 22-5-1999 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to terminate the petitioner's H.T. Agreement with effect from 23-3-1999.2. The petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company. It has established its Plant at Kondamadugu village of Nalgonda District and is having a High Tension power supply from the respondent-Corporation with a contracted maximum demand of 450 KVA. The petitioner-Company has become a sick unit and hence, it has addressed a letter dated 20-12-1998 to the Superintending Engineer, Operation requesting him to reduce the maximum demand to 20 KVA from 450 KVA. Since there was no response for this letter, another letter dated 20-3-1999 was addressed to the Chief Engineer, Commercial by the petitioner-Company requesting him for a deration of power s...
PenguIn Textiles, Chennai Vs. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD351; 2000(1)ALT621
ORDER1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 14-2-1964 having considered the proposals of the Director of Industries and Commerce, allotted an extent of Ac.46.97 cents of land to the petitioner along with other industrialists in Sy.No.1 of Uppal Kancha for industrial purpose. Thereafter an agreement was entered into by the Industries Department and the petitioner herein on 11-8-1964. The agreement, inter alia reads that the Government have agreed to allot Acs.46.63 cents of land situated atUppal Kancha, Hyderabad as per G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 14-2-1964 subject to the condition of the petitioner paying to the Government market value of the land as determined by the Government. The terms and conditions of allotment upon which the said land shall be held by the petitioner are stipulated in the agreement. One of the conditions relates to the utilisation of the land in question by the petitioner for the purpose of putting up a factory or factories, housing colonies f...
T.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Secretary, A.P. Legislature, Hyderabad and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD587; 2000(2)ALT206
ORDER1. The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Secretary with the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. In Writ Petition 2141 of 1991 he seeks a direction to appoint him as Assistant Secretary against the existing vacancy and in Writ Petition No. 9055 of 1998 he seeks a declaration that the action of the respondent in not promoting him with effect from 1976 and not giving him future promotions in accordance withpre-1979 Rules and now seeking to apply the Ad hoc Rules in G.O. Ms. No.66, dated 19-10-1983, is illegal and arbitrary.2. The two writ petitions involve substantially interconnected factual and legal positions and are disposed of by this common judgment.3. Heard Sri A. V. Sesha Sai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madanmohan Rao, the learned Government pleader for Home.4. The petitioner is a graduate in Law and post graduate in three disciplines. In March, 1960 he was initially appointed as a typist in the office of the State editor, District Gazetteer...
Janab Shaik Shafik Ahammad Vs. Janab Sahik Masthan Valli
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD486; 2000(3)ALT111
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted OS No.233 of 1999 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the defendant-respondent herein for recovery of certain amount due under the pronote. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed IA No.551 of 1999 seeking an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC. The said application was rejected. Hence the revision.2. Heard both sides.3. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Judge felt that since the property, which the plaintiff wants to get attached, is already mortgaged to third party, the application for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is not maintainable and hence the application was rejected.4. The legal position explained by the learned Judge is not correct. If this property is attached before judgment and if the decreeis passed in the suit, then the plaintiff-petitioner herein will have second claim an...
Saleem Tours and Travels Vs. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC160; 2000(4)ALD501; 2000(4)ALT468
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In all these cases, the vehicles of the petitioners which were having All India tourist permits or State wide contract carriage permits were seized on the allegation that the vehicles were carrying individual passengers picked up at different places and running as stage carriages contrary to the conditions of permit. In some cases, the vehicles covered by motor cab permits were seized on the ground that they were unauthorisedly plying as contract carriages beyond the permitted seating capacity. The petitioners approached the concerned Transport authority for release of the vehicles under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed or otherwise. In the first two cases, the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, RTA., Hyderabad ordered release of the vehicles on the following conditions:'1. The appellant shall give an undertaking that he will not sell, alienate, encumber or h...
M. Venkatachalam and 4 ors. Vs. the Secretary, Home Department and 3 o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1831
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ petition was filed by five petitioners to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet Nos. 71, 52, 50, 43 and 31 respectively which were opened by the Jaggaiahpet Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of Jaggaiahpet town of Krishna District and they are eking out their livlihood by running hard business and petty shops. The petitioner No.1 is having a cycle shop, the petitioner No.2 runs a small pesticides shop, the petitioner No.3 does business of selling scrap, petitioner No.4 is driver and the petitioner No.5 is a petty contractor, especially prior to three to four years of the filing of this writ petition, they are leading a peaceful life without involving in any criminal activities. Initially, the officials of Jaggaiahpet Police Station registered a case in crime No. 32 of 1...
K.L. Manohar Vs. Swadharma Swarajya Sangha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)586; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)421; 2001CriLJ4935
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision is filed against the judgment of sentence passed in Crl. A. No. 183/93 dated 5-3-94 on the file of the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act and he was sentenced.2. Admittedly the offence arise under the Companies Act. The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G.O. Rt. No. 734 dated 13-3-81 constituting Special Court for Economic Offences. In the schedule to the said G.O. 14 enactments are listed and the Companies Act is one of those enactments coming within the purview of the Economic offences Court. There is a Division Bench Judgment of this court also viz., Fakhruddin Sharafali Ampanwala v. State, 1997 (2) Andh LT (CRL) 529 : 1998 Cri LJ 439, wherein it is made clear that the offences arising out of those 14 enactments are within the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Economic Offences and not with the Metropolitan Sessions Judge.3. In view of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »