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.
Sangadan Subrahmanyam and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)488; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)279; 2002CriLJ1329
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in NDPS SC No. 7 of 1995 on 28-9-1995.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as under :A-1, A-2 and A-3 are close associates involved in Ganja business. On 1-9-1994 at about 4-00 p.m. the SI of Police (P.W. 4) along with his staff and mediators, P.W. 1 and another, while proceeding on bye-pass road atTuni noticed the accused, who are in possession of two suit-cases and a hand bag, standing near Sri Lakshmi Hotel of R. Bangara Babu (P.W. 3). On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from that place along with their belongings. P.W. 4 with the help of his staff arrested them on suspicion and brought them to the Hotel and found one cement c...
Gudikandula Narasaiah Vs. Gudikandula Veeraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT743
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order in E.P.No.6 of 1992 in O.S.No.201 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Huzurabad.2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder - plaintiff in the suit. The decree holder - plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction relating to immovable property in O.S.No.201 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Huzurabad and a decree was passed on 26-8-1987. It is averred that since the son and grandson, respondents 4 and 5, who are the legal representatives of judgment debtor No.2, who died, had been violating the decree for permanent injunction, the present E.P. is filed for the purpose of executing the said decree in accordance with Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court below had dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the decree for perpetual injunction cannot be executed against the legal representatives of the judgment debtor No.2 i.e., the son and grandso...
Bandela Narsaiah Vs. Election Officer, Mandal Parishad, Kothagudem, Kh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD69; 2001(4)ALT717
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A question seemingly of some importance viz., as to whether a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act would be debarred from contesting election under Panchayat Raj Act arises for consideration in the instant case. The petitioner herein works as a general mazdur in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. He contested the election for Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency post of Kothagudem and won the same in the year 1995. He was also a representative in Panchayat Raj body.2. In terms of the election notification dated 22-6-2001, he filed a nomination on 29-6-2001 before the Election Officer, Mandal Parishad, Kothagudem but, the same was rejected stating that 'with reference to your letter it is informed that your nomination application No.173 for MPTC is rejected on the ground that you are employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited as per Section 18 clause (1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.'. The petitioner preferred an appeal there-...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram Vs. State Election ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD240
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether election under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 can be held in Ramachandrapuram where Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is situate on the ground that it has been declared to be a Township. The Company is a Government of India Undertaking and its unit is spread over in an area of 2,000 acres. The major portion of Township falls within the jurisdiction of R.C. Puram and a small portion falls within the jurisdiction of Serilingampalli Municipality. The Company contends that it provides all basic facilities which are to be provided for by the local authorities.2. G.O. Ms. No.512, dated 8-8-1988 was issued whereby and whereunder Ramachandrapuram was bifurcated into (1) Township of R.C. Puram, BHEL. (2) separate Panchayats of R.C. Puram and Bandlaguda. Yet again, by proceedings dated 11-8-1998, R.C. Puram was bifurcated into three divisions. A noti...
Yarramsetty Venkata Satyanarayana Vs. Election Officer, Mandal Parisha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD153
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner questions an order dated 1-7-2001 issued by the 1st respondent herein whereby and whereunder his nomination for the post of member, Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Chennurvillage (for short 'MPTC') had been rejected on the ground that his name had been deleted in the voters' list of Chennur village.2. The petitioner contends that his as also the names of his family members were included in the voters' list. Chennur MPTC is located within Malleswaram Assembly Constituency. As his as also the names of his family members had been deleted he preferred an appeal as a result whereof proceedings were initiated before the 2nd respondent culminating in an order dated 20-6-2001 in terms whereof the Mandal Revenue Officer had been instructed to include his name as also the names of his family members. Allegedly, their names have been included.3. In this aforementioned situation a contention has been raised that the 1st respond...
Chavvakula Savitramma Vs. District Collector, Visakhapatnam and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD156
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in resuming the land of the petitioner and assigning it to the 3rd respondent pursuant to the show- cause notice dated 9-12-1987 as illegal and for consequential direction.2. According to the petitioner, she is a widow of Ex-service man. She was assigned D-Form patta on 19-11-1978 over an extent of Ac.4-67 cents in S.No.335/1 of Madhuravada village of Visakhapatnam District and according to the petitioner she has developed the lands and has been cultivating the same by taking loans from various financial agencies. While so, on 9-12-1987, the Mandal Revenue Officer-2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice as to why the patta granted in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground that she failed to cultivate the land within three years and that the land is for public purpose namely for development of a Satellite township. She was called upon to submit explanation and...
Jaleel Khan Vs. M. Kamalamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD610; 2001(5)ALT595
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Thisreference has been made for adjudication by a Division Bench on a vital point as to whether a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The factual matrix germane for brevity and better understanding of the matter and for effective adjudication of the same may be set forth hereunder thus:The landlord-petitioner filed RC No. 209 of 1998 seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the premise that the tenant committed wilful default in paying the rents. That was resisted by the tenant denying the title of the landlord and setting up the title in himself. While the landlord-petitioner claimed that she purchased the demised premises along with another property under a registered sale deed from her vendor, who in turn said to have purchased the same in her name; the plea of the respondent-tenant was that the demised premises was gifted to him by t...
Chatrati Mallikarjuna Rao (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD669; 2001(6)ALT182
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of prohibition directing the 2nd respondent i.e., The Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') not to proceed with the suo-motu review or otherwise pursuant to the proceedings in CSS & LR Ref.P1/1491/89, dated 21-12-1990, which isin the nature of a show-cause notice directing the petitioners herein to appear before the Commissioner on 16-1-1991 at 10.30 a.m. to show-cause why the order of the Commissioner in Case No.P1/1/86, dated 30-4-1986 should not be reviewed.2. The facts leading to the filing of this case are that one Dr. Malik the father of the 1st petitioner was the estate holder of Siddeswaram village of erstwhile Visakhapatnam Taluk (presently Pedda Gantyada Mandal). On the death of Dr. Mallik the proprietary rights in Zamin Estate were transferred to the 1st petitioner. The Collector, Vi...
Biruduvolu Haranadha Reddy Vs. State Bank of India, (Adb) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT455
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-second judgment debtor against an order made in E.A.No. 372 of 1998 in E.P.No. 34 of 1992 in O.S.No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur dated 2-2-1999.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the first respondent in the revision, the decree holder filed a suit O.S.No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur against the father of the revision petitioner for realization of the loan amount and the suit was decreed. The present petitioner was brought on record as the legal representative of the defendant in the suit. The respondent No. 1 to execute the said money decree, had filed E.P.No. 34 of 1992 and brought the properties of the revision petitioner to sale and item No. 4 was auctioned and the second respondent became the successful bidder and auction purchaser. The revision petitioner filed E.A. 372 of 1998 under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. for setting aside the sa...
Indian Extrusion Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyd., A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC474(AP)
ORDERS.R. NAYAK, J.1. In all these special appeals the question that arises for decision is whether Cable Jointing Kits are 'Electronic Goods' within the meaning of that term if G.O. Ms. Nos. 520 and 521 revenue (CT.II) dated 20-7-1988 or 'General Goods' for the purpose of applying differential rate of tax.2. Heard Sri N. Jayasuriya, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes.3. The Concerned Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 treated the cable Jointing Kits as 'Electronic Goods', and taxed at 2% on the turnovers as envisaged under G.O. Ms. No.520 dated 20-7-1988. The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes proposed revision of the assessments made by the Commercial Tax Officer under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and accordingly, issued show-cause notices. The appellants submitted their replies. On consideration of the replies of the appellants, the concerne...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »