Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Mohd. Khalid HussaIn Vs. the State, Through S.H.O.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)482; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)561; 2000CriLJ2949
Vaman Rao, J.1. Heard both sides. 2. This petition under section 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.230 of 1997 registered at Asifnagar, Hyderabad for an offence under Section 153A) of IPC. 3. The first information report in question appears to have been registered suo motu by the police as the offence is said to have been committed in the presence of police officer in connection with protest rally stand for 6.12.1997 against the demolition of babri masjid. 4. According to the allegations in the first information report, while Inspector of Police Mr.A.Laxmanna was moving in the area concerned on 5.12.1997 at about 10.30 a.m., they said to have noticed the petitioner herein, Mohd. Khalid Hussain, appealing to the people of muslim community who had gathered there for reconstruction of the mosque at the original place. It is further stated 'he was telling in such a manner which promotes enmity between two communities on religion basis and thereby instigating the com...
Jord Engineers India Limited and ors. Vs. Nagarjuna Finance Limited an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)582; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)379; [2000]100CompCas691(AP); 2000CriLJ4933
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. The petitioners herein have filed the present petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal complaints lodged against them under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners herein were the accused in thecriminal complaints. The first respondent herein was the complainant in all the petitions. It was averred in the complaints that the complainant-company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, engaged in the business of finance under hire purchase and leasing and the complainant is represented by its legal officer authorised signatory. 2. It is further stated by the complainant in its complaints that the accused executed hire purchase agreements in favour of the complainant and the amounts are payable as per the agreements. Some amounts were due to the complainant-...
Mustyala Jagadeshwar and Others Vs. Mustyala Laxmi Bai and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD304; 2000(2)ALT558
1. These two CRPs., can be disposed of by a common order since they arise out of the same suit. CRPNo.4112 of 1999 is directed against the order setting aside the compromise decree dated 7-9-1988 passed in the suit whereas the other CRP is directed against an order impleading the first respondent herein as a party to the suit.2. The first respondent is the mother of respondents 2 to 5. Respondents 2 to 5 filed the suit against the petitioners herein and another for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The suit was filed on 1-9-1988. On 7-9-1988 a compromise was arrived at between the parties. In terms of the said compromise a decree was passed for partition of the suit properties between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The first respondent, who was not a party to the suit, filed 1A No.76 of 1989 to set aside the compromise decree dated 7-9-1988 claiming that she is entitled to items 17 to 23 of the plaint schedule which are here separate properties and that the compromise de...
Soham Modi and Another Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Pro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD468; 2000(2)ALT316
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Writ Petition No.137 of 1998 is filed by Soham Modi and Sourabh Modi and Writ Petition No.8035 of 1998 is filed by M.B.S. Purushotham challenging the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1997 passed in LGC No. 144 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Court'.2. LGC No.144 of 1995 was filed by Smt. Dinmani K. Mehta, Girish K. Mehta,Subash K. Mehta and Balakrishna K. Mehta against M.B.S. Pursushotham, Sonam Modi, Sourabh Modi and Anil Rupani for the following reliefs : to (1) order eviction of the respondents 1 to 4, their legal heirs, successors and their agents from the application schedule property and restoration of possession of the said properly to the applicants; (2) direct respondents 1 to 4 to demolish and remove all the unauthorised and illegal structures erected on the application schedule land; (3) declare the respondents 1 to 4 as land grabbers under the prov...
Varadareddy Atchuta Rao Vs. Bhaikar Raja Mitraji Anand and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD263
ORDER1. All these four Transfer CMPs. can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners are the tenants. Applications were filed by the landlord as early as in 1985 seeking eviction of the tenants under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. All the applications were dismissed. Against which the landlord carried the matters in appeals in 1988 and since then matters are pending.2. The present Transfer CMPs., are filed on the ground that the second respondent/second appellant in the appeals, who is an advocate, is interested in the matter and the property also belongs to him along with his father. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second respondent is openly canvassing that the appeal will be allowed. It is further stated that the learned Judge himself has transferred one RCC case to other Court in Gajapathinagaram and, therefore, it is their reasonable apprehension that they would not get justice in the hands of the...
Pokuri Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Vinnakota Peda Nageswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD249; 2000(2)ALT73
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-3-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein to recall the warrant for delivery of the property issued on 2-3-1998 in EP No.7 of 1998 in RCCNo.2 of 1997. For proper appreciation of the question involved, the facts leading to the CRP may be briefly stated.2. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises situate in Vijayawada town. The petitioner filed RCC 491 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada under Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking an order for recovery of possession of the demised premises on the ground that it is bona fide required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new premises. By an order passed by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act, the said RCC wa...
Ch. Sarayya Vs. Nizam Sugars Ltd., Hyd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD805; 2000(3)ALT150; [2000(85)FLR893]; (2000)IILLJ554AP
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ 1. Imputing the judgment dated 22-9-1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.19085 of 1999, the present writ appeal is filed.2. The undisputed factual matrix in this writ appeal is that the respondents have removed the appellant herein from service for certain allegations of misconduct committed by him during his tenure of service. The appellant challenged the order of removal in Writ Petition No.8309 of 1994. By order dated 6-8-1997, the learned single Judge after appreciating various contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition in part and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority (Sub-Committee of Directors) to consider the Enquiry Officer's Report and the explanation/comments of the writ petitioner in relation thereto and to pass appropriate orders thereon based on the material already on record after affording an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner. The impugned or...
M. Govindarajulu Vs. Bhushanamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD444; 2000(2)ALT71
ORDER1. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the suit praying for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from interfering with her possession of the western wall of the schedule mentioned terraced house. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the matter dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned lower appellate Judge reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit.2. Sri P. Vidyasagar, teamed Counsel for the appellant/defendant in this second appeal submits that the learned lowerappellate Judge failed to take into consideration the oral evidence let in by the parties and erroneously came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree of perpetual injunction. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that ...
Atchuta Rao Vs. B. Raja Mitraji Ananda Kumara and 2 ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALT335
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J. 1. All these four Tr. C.M.Ps. can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners are the tenants. Applications were filed by the land-lord as early as in 1985 seeking eviction of the tenants under the provisions of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961. All the applications were dismissed. Against which the land-lord carried the matters in appeals in 1988 and since then matters are pending.2. The present Tr. C.M.Ps. are filed on the ground that the second respondent/second appellant in the appeals, who is an advocate, is interested in the matter and the property also belongs to him along with his father. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second respondent is openly canvassing that the appeals will be allowed. It is further stated that the learned Judge lhimself has transferred one RCC case to other Court in Gajapathinagaram and, therefore, it is their reasonable apprehension that they would not get justice in the hands o...
Madanapalli Institute of Technology and Science and Others Vs. State o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD179; 2000(1)ALT666
ORDER1. In this writ petitionpetitioners 1 to 4 are private engineering colleges which were permitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (AICTE or Council or apex body, for brevity) and the fifth petitioner is a student aspiring to prosecute BE/B.Tech Course. The writ petition is filed for a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Stale of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein, in effecting the additional course/additional intake of seats in engineering colleges from 2000-2001 instead of 1999-2000 as mentioned in G.O. Rt. No.1307 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 15-12-1999 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same. The brief facts stated in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition are as under.2. The private engineering colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh approached the first respondent in 1998 to recomm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »