Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
K. Seshasaila Prabhu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD506; 2001(3)ALT546
ORDERS.B. SINHA, CJ 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 17-1-2001 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) in OA No.123 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the following interim relief had been granted:'Pending further consideration of the OA, the official respondents are directed to review the promotion given to unofficial respondent No. 3 in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.55, TR and B Department, dated 23-3-1998 and also not to consider his case for any further promotion. The official respondents are further directed to consider the claim of applicant No.2 for promotion as Chief Engineer in the existing vacancy, if any, or after the promotion of any person and thereafter the claim of applicants 1 and 2 has to be considered for further promotion considering them as seniors to unofficial respondent No.3 and this exercise has to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date ...
R. Nageswara Rao Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD618; 2001(2)ALT486
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, CJ 1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 11-2-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1457 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.2. The writ petitioner in the said Original Application questioned the proceedings dated 18-9-1998 in terms whereof the petitioner's request to convert a post reserved for scheduled tribe candidate in his favour as he belongs to OC category candidate was rejected. Having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court in Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. ILL. Narasimhan, 1997 (4) SLR 701 and S.S. Sharma v. Union of India, : (1981)ILLJ381SC , the Tribunal held.:'The Apex Court in the reported case referred to above had stated that the de-reservation is a policy decision and the Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with that decision and no one can claim for de-reservation as a matter of right. That observation of the Apex...
Shaik Pedda Karimullah and Others Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Mushe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD30
ORDER1. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to for absorption in the services of the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as the route and the bus in which they were working became the subject-matter of Nationalisation.2. The case of the petitioners is as follows : At the time of nationalisation of bus routes, the first petitioners was working as Checking on bus bearing registration No.AP 9Q 4678 and petitioners 2 to 4 working as Checking and Cleaners on the bus bearing registration No.AP 9G 5047. The petitioners' states that they possess all requisite qualifications and experience to be absorbed in the services of the Corporation to the post of Conductors, Cleaners or any other suitable post. The respective owners of the buses recommended the petitioners' names for absorption and all the relevant documents were submitted to the Labour Officer, Ongole to the effect that they worked on private buses. But for the reasons best known to them, the Labour Officer has not...
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada Vs. Marella Kondala Rao and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD39; 2001(3)ALT31
ORDER1. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, filed this revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, thereafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 21-1-1993 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, (for brevity 'the appellate Tribunal') in LRA No. 140 of 1990.2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, are as follows: One Merla (Bolla) Jogayyamina (for shot 'the declarant') filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act When the declarant proposed to surrender an extent of Ac.6.98 cents in S. No.201 of Surampalem village of Peddapuram taluk, respondents 1 to 4 herein filed objection petitions under Rule 16 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming to be the cultivating tenants of the declarant. Respondents 1 to 4 examined ...
Fakrunnisa Begum Vs. Sondhi Guru Sangath Sabha Rep. by Its President H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALT108
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The only ground, on which the petition for impleading the revision petitioner as a party to the suit was dismissed, was that the revision petitioner had already filed a suit O.S.No. 1778 of 1998, against the 1st respondent seeking perpetual injunction restraining him from carrying on any further constructions.2.0.S.No. 2276 of 1998 is filed by the 1st respondent for an injunction restraining the second respondent from demolishing the constructions made by the 1st respondent.3. The fact that the revision petitioner had filed a suit restraining the 1st respondent from carrying on further constructions is not a ground for dismissing the petition to get herself impleaded in the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent, when it is the case of the revision petitioner that continuation of the building of the 1st respondent infringes her rights, as if the 1st respondent obtains any injunction against the 2nd respondent, it may have some effect or b...
Smt. V. Ranganayaki and anr. Vs. V.J. Srinath and State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)473; 2001(2)ALT428; 2002CriLJ154; II(2001)DMC569
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Since common question of law has arisen in these three Revision Cases, they can be disposed of together. A short, but an important question of maintainability of a revision at the instance of a private party against an Order passed by the trial Court in a police case pending trial of the main case has arisen at the threshold of the filing of these cases.2.In Criminal Revision Case No.1126 of 2000, when on a memo filed by the prosecution praying the Court to frame additional charges under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that petition was dismissed under the impugned Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3211 of 2000 in C.C.No.861 of 1995 dated 22.09.2000 by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, the de facto complainant has sought to assail the same.3.In Criminal Revision Case No.1318 of 2000 when the prosecution filed a petition under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for brevity) to summon the record...
M. David Vs. Convenor, Eamcet-2000 and Commissioner of Technical Educa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD72; 2001(2)ALT587
1. Mr. M. David son of M. Danam, filed this writ petition to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to B.Tech., (Computers) course in the 4th respondent College for the academic year 2000-2001 by declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 as illegal and they cannot deviate or depart from the rank assigned by the EAMCET-2000 examination and cannot admit any other candidate who has got lower rank than the petitioner and to pass any other orders which are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is stated to be an Indian Christian professing Protestant faith, one of the faiths in Christianity and that he passed Intermediate Examination in second Division with MPC group from St. Mary's Junior College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabadin April, 1999, and that he appeared for EAMCET-2000 Examination, which is combined and common entrance test for admission into Medical, Engineering and Agricult...
Khader Bee and ors. Vs. Mohammad Vazir and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT513
ORDERI. Venkatanarayana, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether the Succession Certificate as contemplated under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is required for the purpose of executing a decree obtained in the suit for partition of immovable properties.2. The factual matrix in filing the present revision petition is set out hereunder: The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They have filed O.S.No. 243 of 1981 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and obtained a decree. Pursuant to the decree, the petitioners have filed Execution Proceedings. Meanwhile one of the decreeholders died. The Executing Court took the stand that in the event of the death of a decreeholder; Succession Certificate is necessary as per Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.3. It is to be noticed that in the present case the decreeholders have filed Execution Proceedings pursuant to the decree obtained in th...
Gothami Solvent Oils Limited, Pydiparu, Tanuku, W.G. District and Anot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD516
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 10-F of the Companies Act by the respondents in CP No.7/111/SRB/ 2000, dated 29-12-2000 on the of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai. 2. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Company Law Board in the above mentioned company petition. She was a shareholder of the first appellant company herein holding (350) shares. The first appellant company was initially incorporated as a private limited company on the 22nd March, 1974. Subsequently, on 15th June, 1988 by virtue of the operation of the provisions under Section 43A of the Companies Act, the company became a public limited company. 3. Article 8 of the Articles of Association of the first appellant company imposes certain restrictions on the right of the shareholders to transfer the shares (the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case), except noting that the right to transfer the shares is not absolute under the Articles of...
Mochiganti Subba Rao Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD568; 2001(2)ALT579
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against a judgment dated 30th September, 1997 passed by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada in LRA No.4 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the order dated 12-1-1983 in LCC No. 1278/PDP/75 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada was dismissed. 2. One Venkataramanamma, a lady, was the landholder. She allegedly made a settlement in favour of his adopted son whereunder she reserved a life interest in respect of an extent of Ac. 18-54 cents of land and gave the vested remainder to her son. She died on 16-6-1981. Thecomputation of the ceiling area at her hand had not been determined by then. The petitioner herein filed an application before the ceiling authorities to the effect that having regard to the said fact, the land in question be not taken into consideration for the purposes of computation of ceiling area as her adopted mother ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »