Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Ngos. Colony Development Committee, Machilipatnam Vs. District Collect ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD55; 2000(6)ALT624
ORDER1. As the issue involved in these two writ petitions is common, this order shall dispose of both the writ petitions. The petitioner in WP No.6301 of 1994 is NGOs. Colony Development Committee. It seeks writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the District Collector, the first respondent herein, in Rc. No.B3/50/93 dated 29-3-1994. By the said proceedings, the first respondent directed the second respondent to hand over the site admeasuring 2214 Sq.yards situated in the petitioner's colony to Ambedkar Society for Community Hall and to the Deputy Director (Social Welfare) for construction of office of the Assistant Social Welfare Officer. This Court by order dated 5-4-1994 in WP MPNo.7728 of 1994 granted stay of all further proceedings consequent to the proceedings of the first respondent. In obedience to the orders of this Court in interlocutory stage, the first respondent again issued proceedings bearing Re. No.E1/5267/96, dated 30-11-1996 cancelling the orders dated 29-3-199...
Abdul Khader Vs. Forest Range Officer, Rayachoti, Cuddapah Dist. and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD681; 2000(6)ALT754; 2001CriLJ2617
1. This writ petition was filed against the order dated 16-8-1991 in Forest Appeal No.4 of 1988 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the order of the I respondent in OR.22 of 1987-88 (R) /A.5 dated 8-4-1988, confiscating the lorry of the petitioner bearing No.ADM-3879, being illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No.ADM-3879 and he was admitted in Kumool General Hospital in the month of June, 1987 and underwent treatment from 17-6-1987 to 20-6-1987 and during that period he instructed the driver of his lorry Sri Shaik Khaja Peer to look after the running of the lorry, that after discharge from the hospital, he came to know that his lorry was seized by the first respondent on 19-6-1987 on the allegation that red sandal logs were transported in the lorry and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under sub-sectio...
Dr. P. Krishna Malakonda Reddy Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD710; 2000(6)ALT644
ORDER1. Questioning the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in giving admission to D.M. Cardiology to the 3rd respondent, who it is alleged has passed D.N.B. examinations conducted by National Board of Examinations, New Delhi, and which according to the petitioner is not an educational qualification prescribed for admission to D.M. Cardiology, this writ petition is filed.2. This Court while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents to make it clear to the admitted candidate that his admission will be subject to the result of the writ petition and he shall not claim any equities in WP MPNo.10515 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP MP No. 12022 of 2000 seeking permission of the Court to implead the Secretary, Medical Council of India and the Registrar, National Board of Exams, New Delhi as respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, to make their stand clear whether the DNB qualification possessed by the 3rd respondent can be equated to that of M.D. (General Medicine) or ...
Virani Company and Lubricant Oil Dealers Vs. Durgam Purushottam (Died) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD280; 2001(1)ALT273
ORDER1. The revision is filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in RA No.356 of 1995, dated 26-8-1997 setting aside the order passed in RC No.270 of 1991, dated 5-4-1995 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant from 1-8-1979 onwards and also on the ground of bona fide personal occupation. It was the case of the landlord that the tenant has not paid the rent from 1-8-1979 and that he is liable for eviction from the schedule premises. It is also the case of the landlord that the premises is required for his personal occupation. The matter was resisted by the tenant. It was the specific case of the tenant that there was no default muchless wilful default on the part of the tenant and the amounts were being paid by him regularly. It is also the further case of the tenan...
Prudential Co-operative Urban Bank Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(AP)212; [2001]250ITR121(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Against the impugned order of the second respondent, the petitioner can institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right claimed by it. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the provision for alternative, remedy would not come in the way of this court exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that in certain circumstances this court can entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the fact that the party approaching the court has alternative statutory or other common law remedies. But this discretion vested in the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as held by the constitutional courts including the apex court quite often, should be exercised with circumspection and judiciously. The point for our consideration is whether the present case is one where this court could possibly for good reason incline or decline to exercise the power under Articl...
Jogi Satyam and ors. Vs. Superintending Engineer, R and B Department a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT182
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned Single Judge declining to exercise the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the notice issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B; Department, Bhimavaram, for removing the encroachments made on the road, which is causing traffic hazard.2. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court in order to satisfy itself whether the construction of the appellants is on the road or on the road berms, and whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land in dispute and report to this Court.3. The learned Advocate Commissioner for the reasons best known on point No. 2 whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not observed that when he inspected the land in question he did not find any movement of heavy traffic, and therefore, he is unable to report whether there is any haz...
Vysyaraju Sanyasi Raju (Died) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Potnuru Venkata R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD58; 2000(6)ALT405
ORDER1. Heard both sides2. The petitioners in CRP No.1755 of 1999 are the respondents-third parties. Respondents 1 to 4 are defendants in the suit and petitioners in the IA. Respondents 5to 12 are said to be the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff in the suit. Whereas, CRP Nos.1562 and 215 of 1999 have been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 4 herein are the defendants and respondents 5 to 6 are the third parties.3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.1562 and 1755 seek to challenge the order dated 19-2-1999 passed in IA No.509 of 1994 in OS No.136 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam under which the application filed on behalf of the defendants for issuing notice to third parties under Order 8-A of CPC has been allowed. Whereas CRP No.215 of 1999 has been filed against the order dated 17-11-1998 in IA No.508 of 1994 in OS No.136 of 1993 under which the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge granted leave to the def...
P. Seshagiri Rao Vs. K. Pattabhi Raman
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)753; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)68
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. Heard both sides.2.This petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of proceedings in CC No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The petitioner along with others is sought to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120B, 341, 342, 387 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC.4. The petitioner, who is accused no.1 is the Circle Inspector of Police in Ranga Reddy District. The essence of the allegations against the petitioner as disclosed in the complaint may be stated briefly as follows:The complainant is the Manager of Medchal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (for short 'MPCL') incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered and Administrative office at Secunderabad and it is a factory in Medchal. Accused no.1 is the Circle Inspector of Police, Medchal. Accused nos.2,3and ...
Virginia Tobacco Growers Association Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD720; 2001(1)ALT20
1. In this Batch of writ petitions, this Court is called upon to decide:(1) Whether the Tobacco Board (hereinafter referred as 'the Board') is having the authority to declare crop holiday for the FCV Virginia tobacco that is being grown in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2000-2001. (2) If the answer is 'yes', whether it can be said that it is a 'reasonable restriction' on the tobacco trade as contemplated under Section 19(g) of the Constitution. 2. Having heard the arguments for four days, having perused the provisions of the Act and having entertained a doubt that the decision taken by the Board is too harsh affecting the agriculturists and agricultural labour, as the same being nominated body, but not a democratically elected one, and also in the light of the allegations and counter allegations that are being made in the Court by the persons supporting crop holiday and against crop holiday, with a view to find out whether any workable formula can be arrived at, I passed an i...
Mohd. RiazuddIn and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD756; 2000(6)ALT239
1. The writ petition andthe regular first appeal are clubbed together as they relate to the land in Sy.No.225 admeasuring Ac.1-39 guntas (hereafter called 'the inam land1) of Nizamabad. This common order shall dispose of the writ petition as well as appeal.2. The writ petition is filed challenging the appellate order of the District Collector, Nizamabad, the second respondent herein, in proceedings No.C/36/86 dated 18-9-1989 under the A.P. (Telangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereafter called 'the Inams Act'). AS No.1149 of 1994 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28-4-1994 in OS No.145 of 1987 filed by the A.P. State Wakf Board (hereafter called 'the Wakf Board' which is 4th respondent in the writ petition) on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad. The said suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property admeasuring Ac. 1-39 guntas comprised in Sy.No.225 against three defendants who are the petitioners in WP No.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »