Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Komirisetty Rama Rao Vs. Collector, Guntur (Commissioner of Panchayat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD243
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is former Sarpanch of Ainavolu Gram Panchayat in Nujendla Mandal of Guntur District. He seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, namely, the District Collector, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet and Mandal Panchayat Officer, Nujendla in reserving the office of Sarpanch of Ainavolu Gram Panchayat for Scheduled Castes (SC) persons instead of Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayat (fourth respondent herein) as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and also prays for a consequential reliefs.2. The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. Ainavolu was a revenue village and Pathacherukumpalem was its hamlet. In the year 1966 Pathacherukumpalem was declared as village for the purpose of Panchayat Raj Act and it became an independent Gram Panchayat whereupon two separate voters lists are prepared for these two Gram Panchayats. According to the petitioner, as per Article 243-D of the Constitution of India and relevan...
Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges and Court Masters Associati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD212
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Association of Personal Secretaries to the Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Court Masters has filed this writ petition seeking pay scale on par with the Section Officers of the Strictly Confidential Branch of the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Originally when the writ petition was presented in this Court on 10-2-2000, the prayer read:'For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issued an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the fourth respondent in not considering the representation dated 10-4-1998 submitted by this Association and in not granting the reliefs prayed for therein is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant equal cadre with that of t...
Vasavi Academy of Education, Hyd. Vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD372; 2001(4)ALT642
ORDER1. The proceedings dated 23-4-2001 on the file of the first respondent-Bar Council of India is impugned in this writ petition.2. The petitioner-Society is running a Law college by name Pendekanti Law College. The college started functioning from the academic year 1990-91 initially at premises bearing No. 3-6-215, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, where other institution of the Academy were also located.3. As at present, the college is being run in a rented premises from December, 1998 onwards. The building belongs to the A.P. State Chamber of Panchayat Raj. It is stated that it has 8 lecture halls, one big Moot-Court hall, 2 staff rooms, one Principal's room, one office room and one big hall exclusively used for Library. It is claimed that this college is one of the few law colleges paying UGC Scales and allowances to the Lecturers and has a well qualified Principal and sufficient supporting non-teaching staff.4. It is not necessary to refer in detail about the brilliant performance of som...
R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. Saleha Begum Alias Shehensha Begum and 17 ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT770
Cys, J.1. First defendant in O.S.538 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant in this appeal. 2. First respondent filed the suit against the appellant and respondents 2 to 18 for recovery of possession of Navarang Theatre at Congress Office Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada, hereinafter called the suit property, and for damages and mesne profits, on the ground that the agreed period of lease in respect of the suit property between her, the appellant and respondents 2 to 18 under Ex.A.1 lease deed came to an end due to efflux of time. Appellant contested the suit contending that respondents 2 to 18 have no interest in the suit property, and that 1st respondent having initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for eviction. During the fag end of the proceedings before the trial Court, he filed two additional written statements on 13.9.1997 and 4.2.1999 contending that first r...
The State of A.P. Rep. by the State Representative Before Stat Vs. Cyn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC287(AP)
ORDERS.R.Nayak, J.1. The respondent company is an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle, and it is dealing in sale of Drugs, Medicines, Poultry Medicines and Pesticides. The Assessing authority assessed the sales of Aurofec manufactured by the assessee at the rate of 2,2% classifying the same as poultry feed falling under entry 86 of the first schedule to the APGST Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad (Rural) Division took up suo-moto revision and found that the assessing authority has wrongly assessed the sales of Aurofac at the rate of 2.2% classifying it as a poultry feed, and treating the Aurofac as Medcine falling under entry 37 of First Schedule of the Act, taxed it at the rate of 5%. Aggrieved by the said order, of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal opined that the dominant ingredient of Aurofac is only the ...
M.A. Majeed Vs. the Appellate Authority/Managing Director, State Bank ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD148
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. When the petitioner was functioning as Branch Manager at Karankota Branch of the State Bank of Hyderabad, he was charge sheeted for committing some financial irregularities, which was followed by suspension pending enquiry and after completion of Domestic Enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also the proposed punishment and consequently issued final notice calling for the explanation and after considering the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service through the impugned proceedings dated 29-8-1989. This order of the Disciplinary Authority was assailed before the Appellate Authority, who confirmed the same by his order No. DPC/163 dated 2.5.1990.2. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present writ petition is filed on various grounds and as it is offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he was appointed by the Executive Committee,...
Anandi Roller Flour Mills Limited, Hyderabad Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC355(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J :1. There is a delay of 463 days in filing TRC (SR) No.41563 of 2001. Hence the petitioner has filed CMP No.11808 of 2001 seeking for condonation of 463 days delay in filing the above TRC against the order of the STAT, Hyderabad dated 21-9-1999 in TA No.5767 of 1997. Similarly there is a delay of 521 days in filing TRC (SR) No. 35745 of 2001. Hence the petitioner has filed CMP No. 11955 of 2001 seeking for condonation of delay of 521 days in filing the TRC against the order of the STAT, Hyderabad in TA No. 1029 of 1996 dated 20-7-1999. Likewise there is a delay of 186 days in filing TRC (SR). No.35743 of 2001. Hence the petitioner has filed CMP No.13512 of 2001 seeking for condonation of delay on 186 days in filing the TRC against the order of the STAT, Hyderabad dated 20-7-1999 in TA No.1028 of 1996.2. Since common question of law arises in deciding these CMPs, where delay is sought to be condoned in filing the TRCs under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act, 1957 (herein...
Velicheti Audinarayana and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD604; 2002(5)ALT554
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. A revision and a writ petition raise same question of law. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is unfortunate that neither the State Government nor the Union of India filed any counter affidavit to the writ petition and the matter had to be heard without a counter on their behalf. The parties shall be refereed to as they appear in the cause title of the writ petition.2. The petitioners filed OS No. 51 1975 before Subordinate Judge, Razole seeking a declaration with respect to the title of the plaint schedule property. The suit property was a piece of land measuring Ac.2-30 cents. Along with the declaration the petitioners sought a decree for possession and mesne profits as well. The suit was decreed on 12-12-1977. The respondents 3 to 7 who were defendants in the suit filed anappeal being AS No. 115 of 1978 against the judgment and decree. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the judgment of the trial...
Mohd. Ishaq and Another Vs. State of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD623
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. These are three matters which were heard together. They pertain to the same subject-matter therefore they are decided by this common judgment.CCCA No. 55 of 1995 2. The appeal was filed against the judgment in OS No. 230 of 1993. The suitwas for specific performance. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants in the suit had executed an agreement on 21st August, 1991 for sale of a plot of land. By judgment and decree dated 26-4-1994 the suit was decreed and the defendants therein filed this appeal. During the course of the appeal the successful plaintiffs who are the respondents have filed a Memo stating that during the pendency of the proceedings the schedule property has been taken over under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the property is now under the use and occupation of the beneficiaries as such the defendants i.e., appellants cannot deliver the property to the plaintiffs-respondents, therefore the decree of the Court below has become ...
Sub-collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Gudur Vs. Venkata Kumarasw ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD231; 2001(6)ALT748
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. This appeal and cross-objections arise out of an award passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur (Civil Court) in O.P.No. 14 of 1979 dated 3-6-1996. Land Acquisition Officer is the appellant in A.S.No. 562 of 19.97 whichis filed assailing the grant of enhanced compensation by the Civil Court over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Cross-objections are filed by the claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Civil Court granting lesser compensation. Since the appeal and cross-objections arise out of the award passed by the Civil Court in O.P.No. 14 of 1979, we propose to dispose of the same by this order.2. Before we set out to decide the contentions raised in this appeal and cross-objections, few relevant facts are traced as under:3. On 19-7-2001, after hearing the Government Pleader for the appellant in A.S. No. 562 of 1997 and Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, counsel for the claimant/Cross-objector, we dictated the judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »