Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
T. Dhanalakshmi Vs. Chief Commercial Officer, Sc Railway, Sanchalan Bh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD376; 2001(4)ALT335
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ.1. The appellant was allotted a public telephone booth at Vijayawada booking office. Her husband was a handicapped person. It was originally granted in favour of her husband who died within three months after installation of the said booth whereafter the same was transferred in the name of the appellant.2. The period of licence was from 1-3-1998 to 28-2-2000 which was renewed from 2-3-2000 to 28-2-2001. The appellant requested for further renewal of the said licence which was rejected on the ground that in terms of the new guidelines STD/ ISD booths shall be allotted on open bidding.3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein holding that she does not have any legal right for a perpetual renewal. Feeling aggrieved the appeal has been filed.4. Mr. K. V. Subrahmanya Narusu, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel would contend th...
Sakala Viswanath and Another Vs. Commissioner of Technical Education, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD499; 2001(4)ALT88
ORDER1. The issue to be decided being common in all these three writ petitions, they can be disposed of by a common order.2. The students 11 in number, who passed Diploma in Chemical Engineering in (Petro Chemicals) and Plastics and Polymers at the Government Institute of Post Diploma Course in Engineering and Technologies (GETCET) filed these three writ petitions questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-Convener, ECET(FDH) 1999-2000 JNTU, in the College of Engineering, Hyderabad, in not considering their case for admission into the Chemical Engineering Course, by treating the institution in which they haveprosecuted their studies as a Statewide institution.3. After filing of the writ petitions, it seems two petitioners secured payment seat in private colleges and they are prosecuting their studies in the Engineering Colleges. Hence the issue that has been cropped up in these writ petitions can be adjudicated with reference to the other petitioners.4. The President of India, in exe...
Avula Sathaiah Vs. Avula Lingaiah and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD546; 2001(3)ALT221
ORDER1. The dispute in this revision is whether the unregistered sale deed dated 30-10-1993, sought to be marked can be received and admitted in the evidence.2. Originally the suit was filed for permanent injunction. During the trial, the defendant No.l sought for receipt and admission of an unregistered sale deed dated 30-10-1993 to substantiate the averments made in the written statement. Upon the same being objected by the plaintiff, the trial Court having considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, disallowed the said unregistered sale' deed dated 30-10-1993 to be received and admitted into evidence, upholding the objection raised by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present revision is filed by the defendant No.3. The parties herein shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking assigned to them in the suit.3. The plaint averments are necessary to be looked into and they are in brief as follows:The plaintiff purchased the suit land f...
K. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao Vs. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD646
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J1. Although the pleadings and documents in this case run into hundreds of pages and the matter underwent number of adjournments, in our considered opinion the lis brought beforethis Court will not detain us for long. We say this because, the whole case of the petitioner's claim is built upon an order made by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 27-11-1989 in WPNo.14308 of 1989. At the threshold, the background facts be noted briefly as under:2. The petitioner was appointed as an LDC by the Chief Judge on 23-8-1986 against a vacancy caused on account of the promotion of the earlier incumbent of that post under Rule 16 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules (the Rules, for brevity). Subsequently, when the learned Chief Judge transferred the petitioner by proceedings dated 30-6-1987, the petitioner was shown to be appointed as an LDC, in a leave vacancy. It appears that the petitioner did not assail that part of the transfer order where he was shown to be a...
Jonnalagadda Pulla Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD661
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Rules') is ultra vires Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (for short, 'the Act').2. The basic feet of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner herein was elected as President of No. 12 Somavaram Water Users Association, which is an Association envisaged under the said Act. On or about 26-2-2000, the 4th respondent issued notices to 128 members of the said Association asking them to attend the Motion to recall the petitioner whereafter, an order dated 1-7-2000 was issued, which is to the following effect:'Total members attended to this GeneralBody Meeting... ..126 In the beginning of this meeting, the Authorised Officer, the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, read the recall notice proposal put upon the President, No. 12 Somavaram Water Users Society on the vo...
Sure Venkateshwarlu Vs. More Goverdhan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001AP473; 2001(3)ALT270
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This revision petition is filed questioning the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 862/1999 in I.P. No. 22/ 1999, in rejecting to grant interim protection of the insolvency petitioner till the diposal of the I.P. and also for his release from the custody of the bailiff as per the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda in I.A. No. 93/1999 in O.S. No.1/1999.2. The brief facts are that the 4th respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of money in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda and sought for attachment of immovable properties of the petitioner before Judgment. The saidCourt passed a conditional order to furnish security. But the petitioner failed to furnish any security and sought for week's time from that Court. But in 'the meanwhile, he sold away the property to third party under a registered document. Then the 4th respondent again filed another petition in I.A. No. 93/1999 under Order 38 Rule 1 ...
Kadityala Bharathi Vs. Telukuntla Narsimha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALT287
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This revision is filed against the order dated 24-7-2000 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda in I.A. No. 457/2000 in I.A. No. 432/1991 in O.S. No. 110/1989.2. The petitioner herein is the respondent No.4 in the suit for partition. The respondent No. 1herein is the plaintiff in the suit and she filed the suit for partition against his brother and others with regard to certain immovable property mentioned in plaint schedules A and B. A preliminary decree was passed and having come to know about the inclusion of some of the properties belonging to the petitioner in the partition suit, she filed an application in I.A. No. 100/1994 for impleading herself as respondent in I.A. No. 432/1991, which was filed by the respondent No. l - plaintiff for passing a final decree.3. During the course of enquiry in I.A. No. 432/1991, which was filed for passing of the final decree, the petitioner herein was directed to lead evidence by the Court below and the mat...
Manikeshwari Agencies, Indian Oil Corporation Kerosene Wholesale Deale ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD111; 2001(2)ALT552
ORDER1. The proceedings dated 9th October, 2000 on the file of the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District suspending the licence of the petitioner in purported exercise of the power tinder Clause 28 of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Petroleum Products Order') is impugned in this writ petition.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmities, it may be necessary to notice a few relevant facts:The petitioner has been appointed as Kerosene Wholesale Dealer by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited by proceedings dated 27-9-1986 and there is no dispute whatsoever that the same is still subsisting. The petitioner as is required applied for and obtained and licence for purchase - sale -storage for sale of Kerosene under the Petroleum Products Order from the Licensing Authority. The petitioner on procuring the Kerosene from the Indian Oil Corporation is required to supply the same to r...
Potnuru Lakshmana Rao Vs. Potnuru Babu Rao (Died) Per Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD520
ORDER1. This revision petition is preferred by the defendant against the order dated 7-7-1999 in allowing the IA No.1777 of 1995 for amendment of the plaint in OS No.15 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.2. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff, respondent herein, for eviction of the tenant-defendant and for recovery of arrears of rents. The tenant-revision petitioner denied title of the respondent-plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff-respondent therefore, filed the above IA seeking amendment of the plaint which is extracted hereunder:'.............the Honourable Court may bepleased to permit me to add at the end of para III(3) of the plaint 'to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property' and to delete in the para V of the plaint 'one year's rent Rs.1,200/- and add 3/4th marketvalue of the properly Rs.9,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.711/- is paid under Section 24 (a) of the APCF and S...
B. Venkata Lakshmi Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD551; 2001(4)ALT70
ORDER1. Questioning the correctness of Memo in Roc. No.TL2/26347/96 dated 22-4-1998 issued by the 1st respondent wherein the request of the petitioner for Special Grade Civil Surgeon scale on completion of 5 years as per G.O. Ms. No.537 M&H; (A2) dated 8-9-1981 was rejected, the petitioner filed this writ petition.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner after taking her Post-Graduate Degree in General Medicine was appointed as a medical Officer in the 1st respondent Devasthanam on 18-6-1970. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Civil Surgeon on 2-2-1985. Having put in 5 years of service in Civil Surgeon cadre she made a representation in the year 1996 to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam seeking the Special Grade promotion scale as per G.O. Ms. No.537 M&H; (A2), dated 8-9-1981. The said request was rejected on the ostensible ground that the said GO is not applicable to the employees of the TTD. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another representation on 3-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »