Andhra Pradesh Court October 2001 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.
P. Kamala and Ors. Vs. P. Mallikarjuna Rao, MD, A.P. Women's Co-operat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD602; 2002(1)ALT208
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. In WP No. 23128/95 and Batch, I directed regularisation of services of the petitioners w.e.f., 1.1.2001 with all consequential benefits. But, on appeal, a Division Bench of this Court though setting aside my order, categorically observed that the amendment is only prospectiveand the rights crystallized under the orders ofthis Court as well as the Apex Court cannot be disturbed. Admittedly, all these petitioners have completed five years of services prior to the amendment. But, at the same time, the Division Bench while setting aside my finding with regard to the cadre strength, they neither laid any guidelines with regard to the regularisation of the services of the temporary employees who are working for decades in an organisation where there is no cadre strength is prescribed at all nor referred to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v Piara Singh, : (1993)IILLJ937SC and Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Lahhu Bechar,...
Rasheed Mohammad HussaIn Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD434; 2001(6)ALT319
ORDER1. This civil revision petition (CRP) arises under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act. After various proceedings, it was ultimately decided that he holds an extent of 14.9055 standard holdings in excess of ceiling limit. That finding having become final, the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act were initiated for surrender of the lands and substantial extents of land have been surrendered. The dispute arose only in respect of land in respect of Sy.No. 140 of Gurramguda village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District.3. According to the petitioner, he sold an extent of Ac.40-00 of land in Sy.No. 140 to some third parties, he offered to surrender alternative lands to an extent of Ac.13-00 in Sy.No. 140, Ac.17-5 gts. in Sy.No. 144 and Ac.10-00 in Sy.No. 150 i.e., a total extent of 40-5 guntas, and that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam (for short 'the primary Trib...
B. Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer/L, S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD520; 2001(6)ALT74
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether a writ petition questioning the original order after an application for review thereof has been dismissed would be maintainable before this Court having regard to the decision of the apex court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA, : [1997]228ITR725(SC) , is the question involved in this petition.FACTS:2. The petitioner herein while working as an apprentice mechanic in the Railways was removed from service by proceedings dated 9.7.1993 allegedly on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from 10.1.1985 to 15.4.1985.3. The original application was dismissed on 3.1.1997 and review petition was disposed of on 6.3.1998.4. Administrative Tribunals have been constituted in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution of India. In terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction of all courts is barred and only an appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court under Section 28 of the said Act. Section 28 reads thus:Exclusion of ...
Mohd. Abdul Azeem Zakee and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD394; 2001(6)ALT57
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by A.P. Act No.8 of1998, which imposes a pre-condition of depositing the difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector under Subsection (2) of Section 47-A on reference from the Registering Officer under Subsection (1) thereof, for preferring an appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 47-A of the Act against the order of the Collector passed under Sub-section (2), is challenged in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. The fact of the matter is as follows: 3. The petitioners entered into various conveyance deeds for purchase of property at Municipal Nos-8-2-592, 593 and 592/1 situated at Mehid Nawaz Jung Road, Hyderabad. Seven documents in relation thereto were presented for registration before the 3rd respondent in the month of December, 1996. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 12,06,970 being the deficit stamp ...
K. Vijay Kumar Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD734
ORDER1. Since the question involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring theamendment to Rule 2 of the definition of Contract Carriage under Rule (1a) Sleeper Bus and (1b) Sleeper Coach in A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 insofar as it relates to imposition of restriction viz., by an owner organisation whose fleet exceed 2000 and with a holder of permit vide G.O. Ms. No. 134 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 14-6-1999 as inconsistent to Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ultra vires, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also contrary to the provisions of the M.V. Rules, 1988 and opposed to basic principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to register the petitioners' vehicle as Sleeper Coach as per Section 39 - 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and permit the petitioner to op...
Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi Vs. T. Yoganand and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD555
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondents filed various Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the following reliefs: 'To call for records relating to and connected with the select list of 1999 for promotion of State Police Service Officers to Indian Police Service cadre of Andhra Pradesh and quash the same declaringthe same as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, against Statutory Regulations and Regulations and principles of Law and pass such other and necessary orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case'. Background facts: 3. The fact of the matter, shorn of unnecessary details, is as follows: 4. The original applicants- unofficial respondents were direct recruit Deputy Superintendents of Police (Dy.S.Ps), a...
Sevanthi Bai and ors. Vs. Mandodhari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD151
Bilal Nazki, J.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by metes and bounds. They claimed 1/7th share. They also claimed a share in 'C' schedule property'. They also sought a direction that defendants 1, 4 to 8 should account for the income derived and collected from A and B schedule properties and pay their share out of the rents. They also claimed costs.2. In the plaint it was contended that one Sharfaji Neemkar the ancestor of the parties died in the year 1980, he had two wives one by name Balubai who died in the year 1985. Sharfaji Neemkar through her had two sons Nagender Rao Neemkar defendant No. 1 and late Laxminarayana the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. He had also one daughter by name Kamalabai defendant No. 2. The second wife of Late Sharfaji Neemkar was Savanthi Bai, the defendant No. 3 and through her he had five sons Subash, Suresh, Shivaji, Ashok and Raju @ Sachidanand who were arrayed as d...
Snehalatha Vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD130
ORDER1. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity). She prays this Court to transfer the original petition being O.P. No. 388 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad ('Family Court, Hyderabad', for brevity) to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada ('Family Court, Vijayawada' for brevity). Be it noted that the said O.P. was filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for brevity) seeking decree to annul and dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.2. The necessary facts in brief are as follows. The petitioner is wife of respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 13.10.1995 at Gopalapuram village, West Godavari District. After that, the petitioner and the respondent admittedly set up their matrimonial home in Hyderabad. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent ill-treate...
Kollipara Venkat Rao Vs. Moturi Lakshmi Sulochana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD590
1. This is a civil revision petition (CRP) filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a tenant of part of the premises bearing D.No.28/280 of Machilipatnam. The 1st respondent filed RCC No.36 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. The 1st respondent pleaded three grounds in the RCC, viz., (I) wilful default (2) bona fide requirement, and (3) sub-lease of the portion of the tenanted premises by the petitioner in favour of one P.China Nageswara Rao (2nd respondent herein). It was the contention of the 1st respondent that the premises was leased to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.550/- per month with effect from 1-10-1993. The petitioner also filed RCC 15 of 1995 under Section 8 of the Act for deposit of the rents in the Court alleging that the 1st ...
Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD577; 2002(1)ALT216
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Doubting thecorrectness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. SHASHIKALA V COLLECTOR, MAHABOOBNAGAR, 1997 (2) ALD 379 (DB), this appeal, arising out of an order dated 8.1.2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.360 of 2001 has been referred to this Bench.2. Before adverting to the question involved we may notice the basic fact of the matter. The petitioner is an authorised dealer of a Fair Price Shop in Visakhapatnam, which was valid up to 31.3.2001. The Sub-Inspector of Vigilance Cell inspected thebusiness premises of the petitioner (sic) essential commodities found therein. A criminal case was registered for alleged violation of Clauses 4, 16(l)(a)(c)(d)(4) and conditions 4(i), 7, 8, 11 and 13 of authorisation issued under A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 and condition 3 of Form B Licence issued under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »