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.
A. Narsing Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD551; 2000(5)ALT537
1. All the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The matter relates to the applicability of Liberalised Pension Rules, 1992 for the University Teachers.3. The petitioners are the retired Readers and Professors of Osmania University. All of (hem joined in service after 1-4-1953. They retired from service after attaining the age of 60 years on various dates between 1986 and 1990. The petitioners were governed by A.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961, and they were in receipt of pension as fixed under the said rules namely they were entitled for the pension calculated 33/80 on average emoluments of 10 months ending with the month of retirement subject to maximum of Rs.1,000/-. Thus a ceiling in pension was fixed. The enhancement of pension to the teachers of the Universities under the control of Education Department was under consideration of the Government and the Government decided to permit the Universities to provide more liberalised pension and pensionary benefits....
Manikanti Mohan Vs. Manikanti Subba Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALT237
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit O.S. No. 211 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalli for declaration of his right and title to the plaint schedule property, for delivery of possession and mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to remove the unauthorised seal and illegal construction in the plaint schedule property, damages, mesne profits and for costs, on the basis of Ex. A-1, partition deed dated 7-7-1971. The title of the plaintiff was disputed by the respondent. It is his case that he perfected his title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession.2. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues and additional issues for trial:(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property as per the partition deed dated 7-7-1971?(2) Whether the suit property is situated in 'F' Schedule of the partition deed dated 7-7-1971?(3) Whether the de...
M. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD611
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in Cr.No.RC 3 (S)/97-BPL on the file of the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation as being violative of Article 21 of Indian Constitution as also Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The petitioner was hitherto selected to IPS in the competitive examination conducted by UPSC during November, 1993. He was placed on probation in the following year. He married one Ms. M. Venn, but the marriage ran into trouble and the result was the proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. We are not concerned with the above prosecution, but the same is stated because the petitioner harps upon the same, as according to him, the criminal prosecution is the result of the manipulations of the brother of his estranged wife. Of Course, the marriage ended in divorce on 9-7-1997 and when the divorce proceedings were pending, he had appeared for ...
B. Savitramma Vs. Secretary to Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD648; 2000(4)ALT385; 2000CriLJ4428; 2000(71)ECC480
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the mother of the alleged detenu B. Siva Prasad, seeking a writ of hebeas corpus to set at liberty the alleged detenu, now detained in the CentralPrison, Chanchalguda, and to quash the letter in Ref. No. 13/L&O.II;/A1/2000-1, dated 10-1 -2000, passed by the first respondent.2. The allegations set out in the writ petition in brief are as follows:The alleged detenu B. Siva Prasad has been detained in pursuance of proceedings of detention dated 10-1-2000 passed by the first respondent in the capacity of 'Specially empowered Officer' under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activilies Act (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). The grounds of detention were already enumerated in the said proceedings and since those grounds are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, they are not being reproduced.3. From the affidavit, it is further clear that on behalf of the detenu, earlier his wife Smt. Vijaya Lalitha h...
M. Lakshminarayana Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-ii, A.P., Hyd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD130; 2000(6)ALT705; [2000(87)FLR34]
ORDER1. The Writ petition is filed questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-1996 in I.D. No. 421 of 1992 insofar as it denied back wages and other benefits to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd respondent-Corporal ion on 6-5-1968. On 5-11-1997 while he was operating the bus on the route Kamareddy to Badrachalam, an accident took place at Modugula Gudem (Illendu) in which an old man died. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for causing the accident by negligent driving of the bus and by order dated 28-7-1988 he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority which also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 (the Act, for brevity) in IDNo.37of 1991. The Labour Court, after considering the matter held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the mis...
Sabirabi Vs. B. Obula Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD5; 2001CriLJ1285
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Heard both sides on maintainability of the contempt application. A few facts which are necessary to answer the conditions raised are as follows: Aggrieved by the common order passed in IA Nos.158 of 1991 and 78 of 1994 in OS No.44 of 1991 by learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, the complainant herein filed CMA No.1053 of 1994 and this Court passed the order against respondents 1 and 2 on 29-9-1994 setting aside the impugned order subject to the condition that no pucca construction shall be raised on the suit schedule land till the disposalof the applications by the lower Court. On 1-3-1996, other respondents namely respondents 3 to 6, who are relatives of respondents 1 and 2, unmindful of the presence of the order of this Court, started construction of the building. When the complainant lodged before the concerned police, no action was taken. Hence, the complainant filed this contempt case before this Court on 21-3-1996 under Sections 10 and 12 of Contemp...
Shanthi Tarachand Vs. C.S. Narasimha Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD578; 2000(4)ALT426
ORDER1.The revison petitioner is Ihe tenant. Respondent No.l-landlord filed RC No.272 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter referred to as 'tlie Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste which materially imparted the value and utility of the premises. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller is set out as hereiindcr:The petitioner-landlord is the owner of the premises bearing No. 108/6, Park Lane, Secunderabad which consists of ground floor and first floor. Late Sri Tarachand, husband of the tenant, has obtained premises on rent from the landlord's grandfather through a letter dated 3-11-1972 intimating the tenant about the execution of the lease deed and also the attornment of the premises in favour of the pe...
Divyanagar Plot Owners Association, Kachwanisingaram Vs. Government of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD625; 2000(4)ALT380
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not regularising and releasing the lay out in respect of land measuring Ac. 52-11 guntas in S.Nos. 50, 51 parts, 52, 53 and 54 parts situated at Kachiwanisingaram village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtbelonging to the members of the petitioner association and demanding the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,57,764/- towards development charges and Rs.4,23,106/-towards processing charges vide letter 9647/ P7/RL/HUDA/98 dated 25-9-1999 without implementing Clause (10) of G.O. Ms. No.469 MA Department, dated 31-7-1999 and subsequent direction issued vide letter dated 1-11-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions.The petitioner is the President of the plot owners association in respect of the land situated in Sy. Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 parts of Kachiwanisingaram village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is his case that the plot owners in the ...
K. Komaraiah Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-additional Labour Court, Hyde ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD298; 2000(4)ALT441; [2000(87)FLR357]
ORDER1. All these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common order as common questions of facts and law arise for consideration.2. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') by a common award dated 30-6-1999 in ID No.1 of 1999 and Batch dismissed 45 Industrial Dispute cases filed by some permanent employees of the 2nd respondent-Company. The present writ petitions, except Writ Petition No.7514 of 2000, arising out of ID Nos.l, 82, 81, 77, 137, 103, 4, 80, 79, 78, 76, 75, 5, 10, 89, 87, 100, 6, 92, 88, 8, 11, 102, and 85 of 1999 respectively are filed by some of the workmen questioning the common award of the Tribunal rejecting their claim for reinstatement into the 2nd respondent-company consequent on revival of the manufacturing activity in their establishment. Writ Petition No.7514 of 2000 arising out of a similar dispute in ID No.46 of 1999 is also directed against a similar award dated 30-6-1999 passed by the Tribunal separatel...
P. Prem Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Land Revenue and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT592
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 27-8-97 passed by the third respondent-Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (for brevity 'HUDA') as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently for a direction to release the final layout submitted by the petitioner in respect of Sy. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 75 and 76 of Serlingampally village, Rangareddy District and direct the second respondent to implement the orders of the first respondent dated 19-6-97.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition can be narrated in brief as follows: The petitioner, along with others, is the owner of land situated in Sy. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 75, and 76, of Serlingampally village over an extent of Ac. 101.24 guntas. The family members of the petitioner were the previous landowners in 1964. The owners approached the Tahsildar, Hyderabad for seeking permission to alienate the lands in favour of the third parties. Accordingly, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »