Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
G. Satyanarayana Vs. Pathala Laxmana Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT446
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 2/90 in E.P. No. 13/88 in O.S.No. 200/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bobbili.2. The facts in brief are, the respondent herein/Judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21 Rule 2(2) C.P.C. praying to issue notice to the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder calling upon him as to why full satisfaction in E.P.No. 13/88 should not be recorded as certified in view of the full satisfaction receipt passed by the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder on 1-1-1990 in his favour after receiving Rs.25,000/- from him in full satisfaction of the E.P. amount of Rs.30,025/-. The Court below had recorded the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/judgment-debtor i.e., respondent in the present Revision and P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked and on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 recorded. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Court b...
B. Rayappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Department of Posts, Ministry of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT114
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner along with four others filed O.A.No. 139 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereafter called 'the Tribunal'). In the said O.A. he prayed to set aside the fixation of cut-off date as 1-1-2000 for the eligibility criteria for fulfilling the service conditions of five years for the competitive examination for promotion to the post of PSS Group-B. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment dt. 25-4-2001 dismissed the O.A. placing reliance in Dr. Amritlal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan, : AIR1997SC2964 . Aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this Court by filing this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Post Offices (Group-C) on 25-9-1995 and he completed five years of service on 24-9-2000 as Inspector. He is one of the aspiring candidates for the post in Postal Superintendents Service (PSS) Group-B. The said posts are filled up by competitive examination. Respondent No. 2 issued a notificati...
Unionof India and Others Vs. Vungarala Constuructions, Hyd. and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD79
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether, in view of the purported 'no-claim certificate' issued by the 1st respondent herein, an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') was maintainable.2. It is not disputed that the parties hereto entered into an agreement as regards work of diversion of Up line from Channel 169M (km 318/5) to Channel 3318M (Km 321/13) between Bisugirsharrif and Potkapalli Station on Kazipet - Balarsha section construction of well foundation and substructure, superstructure with prestressed concrete girders deck slab, etc., for rebuilding of bridge No.66 as 27 x 18.1630 M for Up main line across Manair river including earth work in approach in embankment on either side of the bridge including extension of minor bridge No.65 and 67'.3. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the same had been referred...
Signareni Collieries Company Limited, Karimnagar Vs. Special Deputy Co ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD81; 2001(5)ALT1
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. What is the true effect and import of sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) fells for consideration in this appeal.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. Land to the extent of Ac.20-11 gts. belonging to the 2nd respondent herein was acquired by the 1st respondent for the use of the appellant-company. An award was passed on 3-8-1987 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre. No application was filed by the 2nd respondent for reference to the civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Other persons similarly situated, however, sought for reference to the civil Court. Pursuant to or in pursuance thereof, the civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,000/-to Rs.9,500/- per acre. The 2nd respondent herein thereafter filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation which was entertained by the Collector and byorder dated 31-12-1990, the c...
Pakalapati Satyanarayana Raju Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD478; 2001(5)ALT763
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ appeal and the writ petition involving common question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. At all materials times the petitioner had been working in a paid post. He was appointed as a Superintendent by the 4th respondent-MANSAN Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). The Trust runs several educational institutions. By reason of G.O. Rt. No. 876 Education (EE) Department, dated 16-5-1992 the post of Superintendent was upgraded to the post of administrative officer. Whereas the post of the Superintendent, upgraded as administrative officer, is a paid post, the posts of Secretary and the Correspondent are honorary posts. The incumbent of the post of Correspondent resigned whereafter, his duties were assigned to the petitioner. By reason of an order dated 25-11-1997 the Director of School Education approved the petitioner as administrative officer with effect from 17-10-1997 purpor...
V. Lokanadha Reddy Vs. D. Nagarathanamma @ Munemma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD643
ORDER1. Questioning the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in CMA No. 2 of 1995 dated 20-7-2000 both the tenant and the landlady filed CRP No. 4138 of 2000 and CRP No. 3044 of 2001 respectively to the extent the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority went against their interest. 2. As both the revision petitions relate to same mulgi bearing No. 10-5-40, Seshapriya Street, Chittoor, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The parties are referred to as the tenant and the landlady for brevity. 4. Apart from the general issues that arise for consideration in these revisions, an issue of general importance i.e., whether the landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building both for residential and non-residential purposes has to be decided. 5. The landlady after exchange of notices, filed RCC No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor, seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises un...
Esi Corporation, Hyd. Vs. G. Venugopal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD422; [2002(92)FLR448]; (2002)IIILLJ352AP
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking judicial review of the order dated 12-4-2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter called the Tribunal), in OA No. 367 of 1999. By the said order, the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment dated 27-4-1998, Passed by the Petitioner, whereby and whereunder respondent No. 1 was reverted from the post of UDC Cashier to the post of LDC, and it was further ordered that after a period of five years from the date of the said order, respondent No. 1 be restored to the post of UDC/UDC Cashier, subject to condition that he shall not regain his original seniority, gained in the higher post, prior to the imposition of punishment.2. The factual matrix in brief is as follows. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as LDC in the ESI Corporation (hereinafter called 'the corporation. He was promoted to the post of UDC Cashier. During the year 1991, while he was working at Hindupur as UDC Cashier, it was alleged ...
N. Karuna and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR230(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not granting a 'no objection certificate' pursuant to the joint statement filed in Form No. 37-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as illegal and arbitrary by setting aside the proceedings dated February 7, 2000, in Proc. No. AA/BNG/10(44)/1/99-2K, on the file of the second respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith grant a no objection certificate to the petitioners. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may briefly be stated as under : The writ petitioners are two in number. The first petitioner is the owner and possessor of the immovable house property, bearing No. 8-2-293/82/F/46 of Film Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The said property is in an extent of 1,148 square yards with constructed area of 998 square feet on the ground floor, 2,30...
Koka Venkateswarlu Vs. Ankala Kanakamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT43
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16-11-1990 made in I.A.No.452/89 in A.S.No.35/88 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.2. The unsuccessful-respondent in I.A.No.452/89 in A.S.No.35/88 is the Revision petitioner. The Revision Petitioner had filed the present Revision aggrieved by the order of the Court below allowing an application for amendment. 3. The facts in brief are that the Revision Petitioner is none other than the son-in-law of the respondent who is an old lady and she filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction relating to immovable property on the ground that the Revision Petitioner had caused some obstruction. The defence taken by the Revision Petitioner was that though the property stands in the name of the respondent-plaintiff, consideration was paid by him and he was in possession of the property in his own right. The suit was no doubt, dismissed. But as far as the ownership of ...
The Regional Director, Esi Corpnn. Vs. Mohd. Yousuf and Four ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT215
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against a Judgment dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.1560 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein was disposed of with certain directions. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein who are working as Stenographer in Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI), Hyderabad filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to set aside the notification No.A-12(11)-2/94 Estt.I(A) dated 1.3.1997 published in the Gazette of India on 22.3.1997 notifying the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Head Clerk/Assistant) Recruitment Regulations, 1997, regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant, so far as it has not included the category of Stenographers as feeder category for the purpose of promotion thereto and for a further direction to include the category of Stenographers also as one of the feeder cate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »