Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Bodapetla Sreenu Vs. Collector and the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT540
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 12-6-2000 passed by the Collector and the District Magistrate, Khammam in Rc. No. C1/795/2000. In the impugned order it is stated that the brother of the Writ Petitioner herein habitually indulges in procuring and trading in explosive substances, and therefore he falls under the category of 'goonda' as defined in Section 2(g) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - (for brevity 'the Act'), and therefore, the Collector passed order directing detention of the brother of the petitioner herein so as to secure public safety. The said order has been challenged before us.2. On receipt of the Writ Petition, notice was issued to the respondents and the respondents filed their counter.3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited our attention to the d...
Gulam Rasool and Another Vs. Quasim Bee Died (Per Lrs.) and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD445; 2000(4)ALT210
ORDER1. In this revision, theplaintiffs 3 to 12 challenge the-orders in IA No. 36 of 1998 in OS No. 19 of 1994 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District allowing an application filed by the respondent No.2 herein purporting to be under Order 22, Rule 3 and Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure to come on record as the plaintiff No.2, being the legal representative of the petitioner No. 1.2. In the suit filed seeking partition of the properties and separate possession, the plaintiff, Khasim Bee, the grand mother of the proposed party, died on 27-12-1997 bequeathing the properties under a registered will deed dated 24-10-1994 to the respondent No.2. On her death, the respondent No.2 who being a minor, represented through the father and natural guardian sought to come on record as a legatee. This application was opposed denying the execution and correctness of the will and also stating that the deceased plaintiff had no right or interest in the suit prop...
K.C. Reddy Vs. Superintending Engineer and Project Administrator, M.R. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD576; 2000(4)ALT352
ORDER1. These two revisons are filed by the defendants in the Court below challenging the orders allowing the applications seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing applications/suits under Sections 14, 30 and 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and directing the defendants to file the award and set aside the award in respect of certain claims.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it was stated that the arbitration proceedings dated 10-5-1999 were received on 13-5-1999 whereupon advice was sought from the Government Pleader in the High Court on 20-5-1999, which was replied to by him on 9-6-1999 advising to file suits challenging the award and the said letter was received on 12-6-1999. On the basis of the said advice, a letter was addressed on the same day to the local Government Pleader, However, since the local Government Pleader was not available on 13-6-1999, the applications were filed after his return and obtaining the records and accordingly there w...
Bachala Narapa Reddy (Died) by His L.Rs. Vs. Kasunuru Bala Obaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT433
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. No representation on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri dated 27-10-99 in IA. No. 268/99 in O.S. No. 161/99 under which the house of the defendant was ordered to be attached under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the house of an agriculturist in which he resides and the agricultural implements are kept, could not have been ordered to be attached under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The learned Civil Judge brushed aside that objection and held that the exemption to the house of an agriculturist available under proviso (c) to Section 60(1) CPC. is not applicable to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. This question is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of O. Laxmireddy v. Vadla Veeraiah, : 1999(5)ALD334 . wherein His Lo...