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.
Moturi Seeta Ramabrahmam Vs. Bobba Rama Mohana Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD111; 2000(5)ALT73
1. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. Suit, OS No 95 of 1985 was filed by the sole plaintiff on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5-1-1973 directing defendants 1 to 5 to execute registered sale deed and for possession of the suit schedule property.2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal would be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.3. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are set out as hereimder : Late Bobbci Krishna Murthy was the undivided father of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the wife of Krishna Murthy and defendants 3 to 5 are their daughters. Krishna Murthy is the maternal uncle of the plainliff. Krishna Murthy and his undivided father Ramachandrayya borrowed a sum of Rs.4,390-00 from the plaintiff's wife and executed a pronote dated 16-8-1967 in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. They made a part payment of Rs. 25-00 on 12-8-1970 and en...
K. Immanuel and Others Vs. Palakol Municipality, Palakol, W.G. Dist. a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD248; 2000(5)ALT159
ORDER1. The layout in TS No.938/4 and 7 was approved by the Palakole Municipality. The layout consists of 14 plots. Plot Nos.1 to 3 were purchased by one Nanneti Augustine on behalf of Nagabathula Joshna Daniel in 1991 under a registered sale deed. In the plot purchased he raised a hut and stated conducting prayers on every Sunday of the week. The property later came to belong to a non-denominational church known as Laymens EvangelicalFellowship (LEF) Group. Since then, Nagabathula Joshna Daniel and after him one K. Chandrapal have been in-charge of the church. In January, 1993, the said church made attempts to get necessary site approval as well as building permission from the District Collector, West Godavari, the second respondent herein as well as Palakole Municipality, the first respondent herein. The application for building permission appears to have been forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent requesting for permission for construction of community hall/praye...
R. Viswanathan Setty Vs. T. Lakshminarasamma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD270; 2000(5)ALT165
ORDER1. Heard the Counsel on either side.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, dated 24-12-1999 passed in OS No.45 of 1995, under which a document sought to be admitted into evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was rejected as inadmissible for want of registration of the said document.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, along with another entered into agreement to purchase some immovable property from the defendant No.1 (respondent No.1). Thereafter, the agreement in respect of sale was abandoned, and the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money said to have been given as advance under the agreement to purchase the property.4. The objected document purports to relinquish the rights of one of the parties to the document in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Senior Judge proceeded on the assumption that the document in question is ...
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT45(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. In this reference case filed under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the petitioner has prayed the Court to direct the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to draft the statement of the case and refer the following questions to this Court for adjudication.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited is a manufacturer of dragline who is liable to pay excise duty on the same?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the confiscation of the dragline and levy redemption fine of Rs. 1.75 crores particularly in the absence of mens rea and clandestine removal and that too, at this distant point of time when the department had already lost its right to collect the duty?2. We have heard lear...
J. Anuradha Vs. Govt. of A.P., Social Welfare Department and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALT592
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The validity of the show-cause notice in Ref. No. 02/7823/97, dt. 13-06-2000 is the subject matter of this writ petition. By the said show-cause notice the petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why the Community Certificate obtained by her should not be cancelled.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. A reading of the show-cause notice shows that after receiving a complaint from the President of the ECIL SC and ST Employees' Rights Protection Society, Hyderabad, the second respondent did not refer the same to the District Scrutiny Committee constituted as per Rule 8 of the A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules'). A reading of the provisions of the A.P. (SC, ST and BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (Hereinafter c...
Venkatarajaiah and Another Vs. Osmania University, Hyd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD558; 2000(4)ALT513
1. These three writ petitions raise a common and interesting question in the realm of University law and it is appropriate to dispose them of by a common order. At the time of preliminary hearing, learned Counsel requested to dispose of main writ petitions themselves and they were heard finally. The facts may be briefly stated.In WP No.9791 of 2000, the two petitioners allege that they are students of the Osmania University. The first petitioner is studying MA first year and the 2nd petitioner has completed MA final year. Both of them belong to Backward Class. They were granted hostel accommodation by the 2nd respondent. They allege that they made deposit in an amount of Rs.1,500/-each as per the University stipulations for the respective years of the course. This deposit is called mess and hostel deposit. It is their further case that though for the relevant period i.e., upto 13-6-2000 the respondents collected mess charge of Rs.600/- from all the students, they have closed down the m...
Vignan Educational Foundation and Another Vs. Government of A.P. and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD606; 2000(4)ALT454
ORDER1. Both the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ petition No.25123 of 1999 was filed by M/s. Vignan Educational Foundation and International Medical and Technological University (IMTU) seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from interfering with the activity of the petitioners in conducting Foundation Training and Orientation at Guntur in MBBS and MCA Courses of the 2nd petitioner University and for other reliefs.3. Writ Petition No.25564 of 1998 was filed by one Dr. R. Sukumar purporting to be a Public Interest Litigation against the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.25123 of 1999 and others seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the establishment of the 1st respondent-College by the 2nd respondent without permission from the respondents 3 to 8 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for consequential directions.4. The facts leading to the filing of Writ Petition No.25123 of 1999 are as follows :The I st petitioner is a Tru...
N. Venkateswarlu Alias Venkanna Vs. Regional Manager, United India Ins ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD105; 2000(4)ALT531
ORDER1. The petitioner herein claims to be the brother of deceased N. Srinivas, who has taken Janata Personal Policy No.20725/50425/97 by paying the premium of Rs.1,250/- and obtained a policy covering the period of insurance from 30-12-1997 to 30-12-2007 and that he died on 22-10-1998. The terms and conditions policy covers all accidental deaths and other personal injuries or disabilities except those excluded categories mentioned in clauses 3 and 4. The petitioner herein was shown as nominee in that policy. The petitioner herein gave an intimation by letter dated 28-12-1998 to the respondents-Insurance company about the death of his brother and also cause of his death as per the First Information Report and submitted all other certificates such as policy bond, Panchanama, postmortemreport, death certificate, legal heir certificate, etc., to the respondents-Insurance company for settling the claim. All the above certificates were acknowledged by the authorities concerned, and there wa...
Modi Rubbers Ltd., New Delhi Vs. K.V.D. Prasad and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD100; 2000(4)ALT535
ORDER1. The petitioner is the respondent in ID No.297 of 1994 Filed by the first respondent herein on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. The petitioner raised a defence that the dispute is barred by the principle of res judicata as the same was already decided by the competent authority under the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 ('the Act'). The petitioner, therefore, filed an application being IA No.186 of 2000 in ID No.297 of 1994 praying the Labour Court to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act for production of documents. It was stated that when the principle of res judicata is raised, the petitioner herein may as well obtain certified copy of the order and proceed with the case and Summoning of the Assistant Commissioner is not necessary. The Labour Court observed as follows:'According to the petitioner, the matter was decided by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour as ...
Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Hyd. and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD138; 2000(5)ALT250
ORDER1. The writ petition was originally filed at the stage of show-cause notice, but however, after final orders were passed and after availing the appeal remedy,the prayer in the writ petition has been amended and the same was allowed by this Court.2. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies-3rd respondent herein dated 1-9-1998 under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') superseding the first petitioner-society as confirmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 11-1-1999, is assailed in this writ petition.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in nutshell are as follows:The first petitioner is one of the biggest Co-operative Housing Building Society in the State consisting of more than 4,000 members having vast extent of land under its control. The composition of the Managing Committee is 15 including the President. As per the bye-laws of the society, election to the Managing Committee is conducted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »