Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Devavathina Paradesaiah by Lrs. Vs. State Bank of India, Kavali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD683; 2002(1)ALT269
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. In this matter, P.S. Narayana, J., was considering the question regarding the Maintainability of Execution Petition on the ground that the decree holder had already filed a petition for passing of final decree and the said application was dismissed on the ground of limitation and, therefore, the decree holder was not entitled to ignore the same and file the execution petition. The learned Judge noticed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Venugopala Swamy and Anjaneya Swamy Temples, Represented by its Executive Officer v. Vucha Narayana and Ors., 1988 (2) APLJ 40, wherein it was observed that Order 34 Sub-clause (2) of Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for brevity)authorises the decree holder to execute the decree in default of payment of the amount by bringing the charged properties for sale in execution of the very decree under which the charge was created and there is no need to obtain a separate final decree in order to enforce this charge on th...
D.L.M.M. Sharma Vs. C.V.S.K. Sarma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD197; 2002(2)ALT303
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner filed this contempt case alleging that the respondents have flouted the orders of this Court dated 25-7-2001 in WP No. 5844 of 2001, and prayed that the contemnors be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. The Court, by the said order dated 25-7-2001 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to implement the order dated 13-9-2001, passed by the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal in R.P No. 2313 of 1987 at an early date and not later thansix weeks from the date of communication of the order and to pay the writ petitioner all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom including fixation of pension and payment of arrears. 3. It is not denied before us that the first respondent herein by order dated 16-11-2001 has passed orders pursuant to the orders of this Court. Consequent thereto, the second respondent has also passed orders on 17-11-2001 notionally fixing the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of Deput...
Rama Bhushanam Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT348; [2002]112CompCas238(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 29 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in which the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 and A2 respectively.2. The first respondent-Registrar of Companies filed a complaint against the petitioners herein under Section 58A(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') read with Rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 ('the Rules').3. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director and petitioner No. 2 is the director of the company known as 'Commercial Agro Products Private Limited', which was incorporated on 21-7-1993. In the complaint filed by the first respondent, it is alleged that the respondent-complainant observed from the balance sheet as at 31-3-1995 and 31-3-1996 the company have under the guise of sheep units and through other schemes invited and accept...
P. Preetha Vs. Panyam Cements and Mineral Industrial Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)525; 2001(6)ALT775; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)142; [2002]112CompCas124(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') to quash all and every proceedings in C.C. No. 679 of 1998 pending on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, in which the petitioner herein is arrayed as the sole accused.2. Before adverting to the various contentions advanced by the petitioner herein seeking to quash the proceedings, the relevant facts may have to be noticed.3. The first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended by the Act 66 of 1988) (for short 'the Act'). In the said complaint, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner herein in partial discharge of the amounts due to the respondent-complainant -issued a cheque dated 27.11.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Thirtha Halli, Shimoga District in favour...
Dr. B. Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist, A. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT104
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. In the Writ Petition, the appellant-writ petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3rd respondent - Dr.(Mrs).K.V. Ramani as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the 2nd respondent - Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board - on contract basis and also questions the correctness of G.O.Ms.No.4, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Env.) Department, dated 3-1-2000 in regularizing the services of the 3rd respondent as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist as illegal, unconstitutional, unreasonable and unfair.2. By Resolution No.1063 of 82nd Board Meeting held on 26-10-1996, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had taken a decision to fill-up the post of Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the category of Superintending Engineer, on contract basis. The Board also resolved that all the vacancies including the Joint Chief Environmental Scientist be filled up on a contract basis with fle...
Andhra Scientific Company Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD205; 2002(1)ALT301
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioners - M/s. Andhra Scientific Company Limited, Machilipatnam represented by its Managing Director (for short 'the company'), a Director and two shareholders of the company seek a declaration that the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 20-9-1991 is invalid and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the balance residuary amount to the petitioner-company.2. By a letter dated 22-7-1991, the company addressed the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Company Affairs seeking payment of residual compensation amounts under the provisions of the Andhra Scientific Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982 (forshort 'the 1982 Act') (Central Act No. 71 of 1982): In the said communication, the petitioner company specifically claimed the compensation amounts due to them under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1982 Act, asserting that after all the liabilities under Section 21 read with the Schedule to the 1982 Act are met, an, ...
State Bank of Hyderabad, Kollapur Branch, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar Dist ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD274
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This is revision filed by the decree holder in OS No.98 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur against the order dated 13-10-1999 made in EANo.7of 1999.2. The petitioner filed OS No.98 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 7,954/- from the respondent herein and others. The suit was decreed on 24-2-1982 and the decree became final. It appears that the petitioner filed EP No.37 of 1986. Since, the petitioner could not recover any amount from the judgment-debtor, the EP itself came to be closed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed EP No. 35 of 1993 under Order 21, Rule 37 of CPC for arrest of the respondent herein and another who happened to be the judgment debtor No. 4. The Executing Court through its order dated 4-1-1997 dismissed the EP against the respondent herein onthe ground that he is not residing within the jurisdiction of that Court. So far as the other judgment-debtor is concerned, the EP was allowed. It appears that since the other judgment-...
Surisetty Venkateswara Rao Vs. Konda Praveen Kumar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD585; 2002(3)ALT207
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two civil revision petitions present almost similar questions of law and facts. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The tenants in respect of two separate residential-cum-non-residential premises are the petitioners in these two CRPs.2. CRP No. 10 of 2000 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in RCA No. 4 of 1987 and CRP No. 11 of 2000 is directed against the order of the same authority in RC No. 5 of 1987. The respondent in CRP No. 10 of 2000 filed RCC No. 54 of 1981 in the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nellore, seeking eviction of the petitioner pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant. Commission of acts of waste and the bonafide requirement for personal occupation of the schedule premises. The Rent Controller, through orders dated 27-10-1996 dismissed the RCC rejecting all the grounds pleaded by the res...
Nankani Kishan Vs. M. Shankar Narayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD63
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.39 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Khammam. He filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 34,400/- based on a promissory note allegedly executed by first respondent. According to the petitioner, the first respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 20,000/-from the second respondent on 5-4-1986. He did not pay the amount as agreed and on 15-3-1989 the second respondent endorsed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff under Ex. A2 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- having received the said amount. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and one of the attesting witnesses as PW2.2. First respondent, promissor opposed the suit claim. It appears that second respondent who endorsed the suit promissory note in favour of the petitioner remained ex parte. Therefore, after closure of evidence by both parties, the petitioner filed an application to summon second respondent as witness on behalf of the plaintiff. Another ...
Kothapalli Gladya Jacob Vs. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD163
ORDER1. The petitioner is questioning the proceedings No. B-2.12038/92 dated 30-10-1993 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the social status certificate of the petitioner issued by the revenue authorities during 1984 to 1991.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this Writ Petition is set out as hereunder:- The petitioner belongs to 'Valmiki' Tribe and the genealogical table of her family for the last four generations would disclose that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. The entire scholastic record right from 1976 to 1990 would show that she belongs to 'Valmiki' caste. The then Tahsildar, Yellavaram and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala have issued certificates on 17-4-1984, 30-1-1990, 1-12-1990 and 20-7-1991 after detailed enquiry to the effect that the petitioner belongs to'Valmiki' Scheduled Tribe. The Valmikis of agency tracts are also variently called as 'Malas' and 'Agency Malas'. The statutory notification under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »