Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Shikha Goyal and anr. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)442; 2000(4)ALT556
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 120 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. They invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and pray this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 120 of 1998 on the file of the said Court.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief, it may be necessary to briefly notice few relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition.3. The second respondent herein filed complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal inter alia alleging that on 30-12-1997 the inspection squad consisting of Sri. M.S. Rama Krishna and the complainant and one Sri Sharada Manjunadh, Office Superintendent of the E.S.I, have visited the factory of the accused to conduct inspection under the E.S.I. Act and the Regulations made thereunder. On the said date, both the petitioners herein were pre...
L. China Venkateswarlu @ L. Venkateswarlu Vs. Bank of Baroda, Chennai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD318; 2000(6)ALT384; [2000(87)FLR402]
ORDER1. These two writ petitions raise same questions of fact and law, therefore they are decided by this common order.2. Different petitioners have joined on different dates but those dates are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The facts relating to both the petitions which are relevant are that, a branch of respondent Bank is operating at Tirumala Hills. According to the petitioners, in addition to its commercial transactions it is also dealing with sale of prasadam i.e., Laddus of the Lord Sri Venkateswara at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. The Bank also sells the tickets which are needed by pilgrims for performing the rituals before the. Deity. The Bank, according to the petitioners engaged the petitioners as their employees for lifting the Laddus which arc kept in trays in the kitchen situated at the main temple. These Laddus are carried from kitchen to the counters of the Bank and other places for distribution. The pilgrims who want Laddus make the p...
M. Lokesh Kumar Vs. Registrar, Ntr University of Health Sciences, Vija ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD534; 2000(5)ALT262
ORDER1. The petitioner assails the proceedings of the third respondent No.SAAP/A and S/9/475/98 dated 24-3-2000 by which it was declared that the certificate of participation given to the petitioner in 43rd Senior National Wrestling Championship conducted at Jallandhar shall not be considered for giving any benefit under sports persons quota in any Government Agency or University. The petitioner also assails the consequential show-cause notice issued by the first respondent No.7499/EA1/ MBBS/99, dated 21-4-2000 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause, as to why the admission given to the petitioner in first year MDBS course under Sports quota should not be cancelled.2. The petitioner appeared for EAMCET-99 and obtained rank of '12882'.After counseling the petitioner was allotted a seat on 18-5-1999 in Sidhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, under sports quota, after verifying all the documents and certificates. These certificates included the Certificate dated 13-7-1997 issued by the ...
illa Sree Rama Murthy Vs. Sanivarapu Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)562; 2001CriLJ1975
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J. CRL. RC.No. 764 of 2000 1. The petitioner assails the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem in S.R.No.2420 of 1998, dated 1-12-1998. He filed a written complaint alleging that Al and A2 having pleaded in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and they never executed the same, at a later stage admitted the execution and therefore they made deliberate false statement which was false to the knowledge and belief and liable for punishment Under Section 193 and 199 of Indian Penal Code. The offence Under Section 191 and 192 are punishable Under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. In respect of an offence Under Section 193 or 199 as the case may be the bar engrafted Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is attracted. The court is prevented from taking cognizance of the offence except on a written complaint made by the court before which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 2.Here is a case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›