Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Mohd. AmeeruddIn and ors. Vs. Osmania University, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD675; 2002(2)ALT558
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether delay and laches on the part of the petitioners woulddebar them from obtaining an equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, although a right in relation thereto arises from the judgment of the Apex Court, is the question involved in these writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein are the retired non-teaching staff of the respondent-Osmania University. The conditions of service of the non-teaching staff of the University are identical to those of the employees of the State Government. The State had been issuing various Government Orders from time to time in respect of the University.3. By reason of G.O. Ms. No. 36, Finance, dated 22-12-1983, the age of superannuation of the employees of the State was reduced from 58 years to 55 years. Pursuant to the said orders, the University by order in Univ. Order No. 915/53/1983/ Admn.II dated 22-2-1983 reduced the age of superannuation of its non-teaching staff also to 55 years from 58 years. The sa...
State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. Mc. Dowell and Company Limited an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD639
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. All these writ appeals arising out of the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge in WP Nos. 23773 and 33741 of 1998 and 9481 of 1999 were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgmentFACTS:M/s. Mc Dowell and Company Limited is the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petitions. For convenience sake the parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petitions. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Chennai. It is a part of UB Group of Companies engaged in engineering, Tourism, brewerages etc. M/s. Hindustan Polymers Limited, Visakhapanatam is a company engaged in the manufacture of polystyrene, Styrene monomer etc. The said company was declared as a surplus landholder under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') under Visakhapatnam agglomeration to the extent of 76.9585 hectares of la...
M.A. Sultan MohiuddIn and Etc. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2002AP105
L. Narasimha Reddy. J. 1. The question that falls for consideration In these two writ petitions is as to whether in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999) of the Parliament repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976), the provisions of the latter Act are no longer in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Since this question arises in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. The relevant facts may be stated as under :-- The petitioner in W.F. No. 12781/ 99 filed declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') in respect of the lands held by him in the Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration. The competent authority under the Ceiling Act declared the petitioner as holding 900 sq. mts. of land in excess of ceiling limits. The petitioner filed an application under Section 20(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Ceiling Act seek...
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Vs. Kaveri En ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT51
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 falls for consideration in this petition, which has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition read thus: The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It invited tenders for supply and erection of plant, machinery and equipment for the purpose of LPG installation at Visakhapatnam on 4-9-1985. The 1st respondent submitted quotation for the same on 25-10-1985 for storage of LPG in spheres, but subsequently revised quotation was given for storage of LPG in bullets. The 1st respondent was awarded with contract for erection, testing and commissioning of LPG installation on 22-9-1987 and work was initially awarded to the 1st respondent at the value of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- which was increased to Rs. 2,05,20,000/- by purchase order dated 29-4-1988. As per the terms of the contract, time is the es...
R.V.V. Suryanarayana Raju Vs. N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Raje ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD196; 2002(2)ALT69
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The petitioner Sri R.V.V. Suryanarayana Raju on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years retired from service with effect from 31.12.1997 when he was holding the post of Assistant Registrar in the N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, the 1st respondent herein.2. In this writ petition filed by him before his retirement, he has assailed the validity of Regulation 33(b)(i) of N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (conditions of service) Regulations 1965 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the University to continue him in service till he attains the age of 60 years.3. This Court while issuing Rule nisi on 23.12.1997 granted interim direction directing the 1st respondent University to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. However, the said interim order was subsequently vacated at the behest of the 1 st respondent University in W.V.M.P. No.3...
P. Rajanna Vs. Labour Court, Godavarikhani and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD64; 2002(1)ALT213
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 9.11.1992 passed in I.D. No. 309 of 1990 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani (for short the 'Labour Court) declining to grant any relief to the petitioner-delinquent.2. When the petitioner was serving as Driver in the establishment of the APSRTC, he was issued a Charge Memo. The charge reads as under:'For having found on the Driver's Rest Seat of Guntur service which came to Depot on 17.11.1988, in fully drunken and unconscious condition while on duty which constitutes serious mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (XXXi) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg. 1963 read with item (ix) under Note (2) of Regulations of APSRTC Employees' (CC&A;) Regulations, 1987.3. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge and in that context a Departmental Enquiry was held against the petitioner in terms of APSRTC. CC & A Regulations. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge....
Velaga Satya Venkata Seetaramam Vs. Kuntaam Narayanamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)857; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)518
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the order dated 6.9.1999 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 37 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the order dated 2.3.1997 in C.C. No. 82 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court as such in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts.3. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 82 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. He filed a private complaint against A-1 to A-10 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 424, 425 and 427 IPC. The complainant examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 in or...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Potharlanka Venkateswarl ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)500; 2002CriLJ3145
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal was filed by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bapatla, dated 27-12-1995, acquitting under Section 235 Cr.P.C. A.1 to A.8 for the charge under Section 147 I.P.C., A1 and A.3 for the charge under Section 354 I.P.C., A.4 to A.8 for the charge under Section 323 I.P.C., A.3 under Section 323 I.P.C. and A.2 for the charge under Section 354 read with Section 149 I.P.C.2. At the outset, I feel it necessary to point out the mistake committed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in framing the charges. The charges are framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C., which reads:'228. Framing of charge:- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which --- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereu...
Golla Amaravathi Vs. Golla Bhaskara Naidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT15
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A. No. 622 of 2001 in O.S. No. 252 of 1995, dated 25-7-2001, dismissing the application to call for the document Ex.A-7, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, without impounding the same, to meet the ends of justice and also to avoid delay, the present Revision Petition is filed2. The case of the petitioner herein is that she purchased the suit schedule property, initially, under an agreement of sale Ex. No. A-7, dated 29-6-1989 and later obtained regular sale deed on 19-1-1995. Subsequently, the 1st respondent seemed to have filed a petition in the Insolvency Court, wherein the property purchased by her was also shown as owned by him. Hence she filed O.S. No. 252 of 1995, seeking permanent injunction not to take possession of the plaint schedule properties. During the trial, having marked the sale deed, she also tried to mark the Ex.A-7 (agreement of sale) to prove that she ...
Koganti Jayakrishna and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD389; 2002(4)ALT9
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the students who had appeared for the Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test - 2001 (EAMCET-2001) and who are aspiringfor admission in engineering courses challenging the order of the Government in G.O. Rt. No.550 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 30-7-2001 whereby and whereunder the Government in purported implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 23-2-2000 in WP No.26404 of 1999 and WA No.795 of 2000 and batch and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh RShah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, : [1996]2SCR695 , issued the impugned instructions (infra) to be followed in the present EAMCET counselling started from 30-7-2001.FACTS:2. The petitioners herein had appeared in EAMCET-2001 (Engineering) and secured - 021550th, 04617th, 002168th, 021624th, 013715th, 001480th, 014259th, and 013355th- ranks respectively.3. Admissions into various Government Engineering Colleges, University Colleges, R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »