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.
Palacharla Rama Rao Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its P.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)200; 2002CriLJ4189
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 27-11-2001 in S.C. No. 251 of 2001 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, East Godawari District. 2. The petitioner is accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 251 of 2001. The petitioner along with 3 others are being prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned District and Sessions Judge by order dated 27-11-2001 made the following order: ' A-1 - A-4 called. Present. Suo-motto re-opened and I shall take the X-rays and evidence of radiologist will be useful in deciding the case. Issue summons to the radiologist for giving evidence and for filing X-rays. The prosecution to furnish the name and address particulars. Call on11-12-2001.' 3. The docket proceedings of the Court below shows that the prosecution evidence is closed on 23-11-2001 and the accused were examined on 2-11-2001 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and posted the case for argumen...
K. Srinivasa Reddy and anr. Vs. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT108
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. W.P.No. 23805 of 2001, was filed seeking to declare the Proceedings No. 507/2001/C2, dated 23-10-2001, passed by the 1st respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, as illegal and contrary to the proviso appended to Section 31(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'), consequently quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioners to run the business of sale of liquor in the name and style of M/s. Madras Wines at Devarakonda, till 31-3-2001 (sic. 2002) in terms of the licence issued on 31-3-1990.2. The learned single Judge holding that against the impugned order, petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 63 of the Act, dismissed the writ petition.3. The correctness or otherwise of the above order, passed by the learned single Judge is questioned in this writ appeal.4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government ...
B. Sulochana Vs. Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT698
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. We have perused the proceeding of the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry, the second respondent herein issued in R.C. No. 5754/Al/2000 dated 12-9-2001, which reads thus:'In pursuance of the instructions issued in the reference 2nd cited, Smt. B. Sulochana, School Assistant, Government Queen Mary's High School, Vizag who is under orders of appointment by transfer from the cadre of School Assistant to the post of Junior Lecturer in Civics in Dr. V.S.K. Government Junior College (B), Vizag is hereby cancelled and posted to Government Junior College, Waddadi, Vizag District in the existing vacancy, subject to the condition stipulated in the reference (1) cited.The Principal, Dr. VSK Govt. Junior College (B), Vizag is requested to relieve the incumbent with immediate effect.The Heads of Institutions, concerned are requested to submit the date of relief and joining to the undersigned immediately.'2. It is seen from the above order that the p...
Mekala Rajireddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)477; 2002CriLJ3407
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 16.8.1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in S.C. No. 1 of 1996.2. The accused A-1 to A-8 were charged of the offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') . The court below, on evidence, found A-1, A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-8 guilty under Section 3(2)(iv) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 376 I.P.C., and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year each. Similarly, the court below, on evidence, found A-2, A-4 and A-7 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for ten years each and also sentenced them to pay ...
K. Subba Rao Vs. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limite ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD796; 2001(6)ALT784
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The matter was heard by this Bench in the forenoon. Again the case was taken up at 2-15 p.m. At that time, the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner states that this writ appeal may be posted before some other Bench since one of us. (Dr. AR. Lakshmaman, J., as he then was) has takenthe view that writ petition against Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited was not maintainable in Writ Petition No. 15720 of 1995 dated 13-2-1996. High Court, Madras, wherein it was held that the first respondent herein is neither an instrumentality nor an authority of the State.2. It is unfortunate that such a representation was made by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner since one of us has taken the view while deciding an identical case against the very same Corporation as a Judge of Madras High Court. It is settled law that Counsel and parties cannot choose the Bench and Bench hunting is deprecated. We are very much disturbed in regard to the re...
Wasim Ahmed Khan Vs. Government of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD264; 2002(5)ALT526
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate. The relief claimed in the writ petition is for a declaration that the action (rather failure) of the respondent in not providing safe drinking water and also for not preventing the outbreak of Cholera and Gastro-enteritis diseases in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent to replace all the damaged and leaking drinking water pipes, replace the drainage system to prevent leakage and overflowing and to provide clean drinking water to all the citizens in the State.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had referred to certain news items in various newspapers about the outbreak of diseases like Cholera and Gastro-enteritis at various places, particularly in Adilabad District, which is attributed to the failure of the Government to supply safe drinking water....
Narhar Raj and ors. Vs. Chennammachari (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD805
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Defendants 5, 6, 10 to 13 and the wife of the 7th defendant had preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1982 made in OS No. 32 of 1959 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad..2. It is made clear that for the purpose of disposal of this appeal all the details of the pleadings and also the evidence may not be essential. However, to be brief, OS No. 32 of 1959 was instituted as a scheme suit by the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of framing a scheme for administration of the temple belonging to Sri Keshava Swamy Maharaj and the properties belonging to the said temple. The said suit had undergone a very chequered career in various stages and ultimately on 2-8-1982, the learned II Additional Judge was pleased to frame a scheme and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred.3. Heard Sri Vilas Afzulpukar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Srinivasa Rangachary, one of the parties...
Suvarna Cements Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD330; 2001(6)ALT728
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a Public Limited Company registeredunder the Companies Act, 1956, of which the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director, engaged in the business of manufactureand sale of cement. The petitioner has established a cement factory at Mellacheruvu in Nalgonda District with capacity to manufacture 2 lakh tonnes of cement per annum. The raw material required for manufacture of cement is limestone. Therefore, the petitioner-company in order to operate its cement plant has taken 350 acres of limestone mines on lease basis from the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986 and a deed of lease was executed on 24-4-1986. Among other terms and conditions, the said lease provides for payment of interest at 24% per annum on the amount due and payable to the Government.2. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nalgonda, the 3rd respondent herein, has issued a demand notice dated 1-9-1998 to the Managing Director of the petitioner-company directing the c...
K. Subba Rao Vs. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002AP183
A. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. The matter was heard by this Bench in the fore-noon. Again the case was taken up at 2.15 p.m. At that time, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner states that this writ appeal may be posted before some other Bench since one of us. (Dr. AR Lakshmanan, J. as he then was) has taken the view that writ petition against Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited was not maintainable in Writ Petition No. 15720 of 1995. dt. 13-2-1996 (reported in 1996 (1) MadLJ 413). High Court, Madras, wherein it was held that the first respondent herein is neither an instrumentality nor an authority of the State.2. It is unfortunate that such a representation was made by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner since one of ushas taken the view while deciding an identical case against the very some Corporation as a Judge of Madras High Court. It is settled law that counsel and parties cannot choose the Bench and Bench hunting is deprecated. We are very muc...
Atv Projects India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)364; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)269
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This batch or criminal petitions may be disposed of by a common order since common question arises for consideration in all these cases. It would be enough if the facts in criminal petition No. 3860 of 2000 are noticed. 2. Criminal petition No. 3860 of 2000 is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 126 of 1998 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally in which the petitioners are arrayed as the accused. 3. The 1 st respondent herein filed complaint against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). It is the case of the respondent-complainant that the 1 st petitioner represented by the 2nd petitioner as its Chairman entered into hire purchase agreement dated 4.2.1995 and availed finance from the complainant. It is alleged that the 1 st petitioner-company represented by the 2nd petitioner also agreed to repay the finance amou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »