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.
Matti Ramakrishna Rao and anr. Vs. Bandaru Yedukondala Venkata Satyana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT186
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S.C. Rangappa, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Sri G.V.R. Choudhry, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioners as against an order passed in I.A.No. 2453 of 1999 in O.S.No. 118/98 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada dated 27-10-2000. The Revision Petitioners are the petitioners in I.A.No. 2453/99 and defendants in O.S. No. 118/98 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The application was filed in the Court below under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing an application to set aside ex parte decree so as to enable them to contest the suit in the interests of justice.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 15-11-1995. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn to by Sri L. Shankar Rao, Advocate, Gudivada, It is p...
Syedulla and ors. Vs. Special Court Under Andhra Pradesh Land Garbbing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD654; 2003(2)ALT457
Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records of the first respondent - Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in IA No. 783 of 1997 in LGC No. 261 of 1995 dated 1-9-1997 and to quash the same as illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and to pass appropriate orders.2. The principal issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is 'Whether the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or the Tribunals constituted thereunder have jurisdiction to entertain cases and grant injunctive reliefs on the basis of complaints that the other party has been 'attempting to grab the land'?3. Before we proceed to decide the controversy raised in the writ petition, few facts which are necessary to appreciate the crux of the matter are traced hereunder:4. Petitioners purchased 6755 square yards of land in Hab...
Ram Kasyyap Chits Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam Vs. Chinnam Krishna Murthy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)855; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)172
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable. Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') in C.C.No. 39 of 2001, on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. 2. The 1st respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act, against the petitioner herein stating that the complainant had joined as a member in the chit fund of the accused-petitioner herein and after the completion of the chit, the accused gave two cheques towards the final settlement of the chit amount in favour of the complainant, drawn on Canara Bank, Visakhapatnam, to be paid in favour of the complainant by way of Demand Draft. The said two cheques were presented on 5.12.2000 before the Bank, but the Bank dishonoured the same on 6.12.2000, due to insufficiency of funds. When the complainant informed the same to the accused about the dishonour of the two cheques, the accused...
S. Mastan Vali Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Dept. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALT229
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioner while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, after holding a regular departmental enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short 'TDP') was dismissed from service vide G.O.Ms. No. 63, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 9-2-1996 as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 63, dated 9-2-1996, instituted O.A. No. 1744 of 1996 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'APAT'), Hyderabad. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 14-10-1997 dismissed the Original Application and affirmed the disciplinary action taken by the Government. Hence, this writ petition under Article 226 assailing the legality and validity of the order of the learned Tribunal.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that both the TDP and the APAT have committed serious error in law in overlooking the admission made by...
Jahabdurunnisa Begum and anr. Vs. S. Balakrishna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD696
1. Since both the CRPs are filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad passed in RA No. 380 of 1993 dated 23-8-1996, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this Common order. Under the orders impugned, the learned Additional Chief Judge set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 5-7-1983 made in RC No. 1191 of 1988 and dismissed the said RC and the cross objections in IA No. 1722 of 1993 filed by the petitioners-landladies.2. The petitioners herein are the landladies and the respondents herein is the tenant.3. The petitioners filed RC No. 1191 of 1988 under Section 10(2) (i)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(a and b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') seeking eviction of the respondent and to deliver vacant possession of the premises bearing Municipal No. 3-5-784/A/2, King Kothi, Hyderabad, alleging that they purchased the peti...
Lakshmi General Finance Limited Vs. Anantha Raja Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD716; 2002(1)ALT357
1. The petitioner in these two revisions is the defendant, who is aggrieved against the orders in IA No. 1180 of 1998 dated 13-10-1998 and IA No. 1101 of 1998 dated 27-10-1998 in OS No. 316 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the vehicle, a lorry No. AP 16U 8328 and for furnishing the accounts, to refund the amount of Rs. 79,000/- paid excess, to deliver the vehicle and to pay damages.3. According to the plaintiff, on his approaching the defendant for finance for purchase of two lorries, the defendant advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- for two vehicles and obtained various signatures on blank printed and stamped papers. The amount is repayable in 35 instalments, which was reduced to 23 instalments. The case of the plaintiff is that he has paid all the instalments and there is excess payment of Rs. 79,000/-. Hence the suit.4. In IA No. 1180 of 1998 filed under Section ...
Sametha Panduranga Swamy Temple, Amaravathi Village, Guntur District V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD177
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The sole question to be answered in these writ petitions is whether an Executive Officer can be appointed in terms of Section 29 (5) (d) of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ('1987 Act' for brevity) by the respondents to the petitioners'-temples, or not?2. The petitioners-temples and/or charitable institutions or endowments herein are questioning:', the action of the Deputy Commissioner appointing a Person-in-,Management by passing an order in proceedings Rc.No.G2/46605/2001-23, dated 31-08-2001 to exercise the powers, perform the function and discharge the duties of Executive Officer of Sri Venkateswara S.T., Vykuntapuram (V), Amaravathi (M), and other Institutions, Guntur District in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 29(5)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. For the purpose of convergence the facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are noticed...
B. Rajeswar Reddy Vs. K. Narasimhachari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD679; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)951; 2001(6)ALT104; 2002CriLJ1
S.B. Sinha, C.J. QUESTION:1. Whether calling for applications by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge or the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for appointment in the post of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public prosecutor would amount to soliciting the brief within the meaning of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the Bar Council of India and thereby would amount to professional misconduct or not is the question involved in these appeals.FACTS:2. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the Government Memo No-34548/Courts, A.2/ 2000-1, dated 30.9.2000, the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad district sent a letter dated 30.10.2000 to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad requesting him to send panels along with bio-data particulars for appointment to the posts of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutors. In turn, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge by letter dated 15.12.2000, requested the II Additional Metropolitan...
S. Deepthi and ors. Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD571; 2001(6)ALT308
ORDER1. The writ petitioners are the students of MBBS course (1998 batch) who passed the subjects of Phase-I of the course in the Supplementary examination held in July, 2000.2. The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in constituting the petitioners and other similarly placed persons who passed Phase-I of MBBS course is Supplementary examination in July, 2000 as a separate batch for Phase-II MBBS course as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Regulation 7(7) of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and to issue consequential direction to integrate the petitioners and others who passed Phase-I of MBBS course in Supplementary examination along with the main/regular batch of 1998 in Phase-II of MBBS course or in the alternative to permit the petitioners and others to take Phase-II MBBS course examination along with main/regular batch (1998) and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit an...
Baddam Prabhavathi Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD655; 2001(6)ALT584
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Since the common questions of law and fact arise in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The matters are before us in view of the reference made by the Division Bench, observing: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length we are of the view that the issues in these Writ Petitions are of public importance and should be decided by a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Section 4 of A.P. Educational institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') is of prime importance in order to come to the right conclusions. There has already been an occasion of interpreting Section 4 of the Act by a Division Bench of this Court in Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. (1984 (1) APLJ 192). We are of the prima facie view that under Section 4 of the Act right to admit the students into Minority Institutions has not been t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »