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.
Govt. of A.P. Vs. C. Prakash Goud and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD339; 2001(5)ALT723
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department is the appellant in this letters patent appeal, filed against the judgment of the teamed single Judge dated 31-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2001. The parlies herein shall be referred to by their status in the writ petition.2. The petitioner (1st respondent herein) filed the above-mentioned writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the authorities in not conducting elections to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents, namely the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the State Election Commission (for short 'the SEC') to take immediate steps for the conduct of elections to the 2nd res...
Grandhi Subramanyam Vs. Vissamsetti Visweswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD630; 2001(5)ALT139
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Questioning the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Captain S.M. Ansari v. Dr. Vejendla Subba Rao, 1975 (2) APLJ 136, a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Bilal Nazki, J.) referred this letters patent appeal to the Full Bench.2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The defendant is the appellant. On 17-9-1974 the parties entered into an agreement in terms whereof the plaintiff-respondent agreed to purchase two rolling machines from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 53,000/-. Prior thereto the plaintiff had inspected the said two rolling machines and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each on 17-9-1974 and 28-9-1974. The defendant was required to deliver the machines upon receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 33,000/-. The plaintiff made anallegation to the effect that after a month he found that the machines which were inferior and worn out, were sought to be sold in place of machines which were agreed to be sold. He made his pr...
Vignan Educational Development Society, Lawyerpet, Ongole, Prakasam Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD506; 2002(2)ALT807
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A short but an interesting question of law as regards the power and jurisdiction of the State Government/the Committee vis-a-vis the power and jurisdiction of the Central Government in regard to laying down conditions for establishment of medical/ dental colleges in Private Sector in the State of Andhra Pradesh fails for our consideration in this appeal.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Central Government enacted Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The Medical Council of India made Regulations on 20th September, 1993 known as the Establishment of new Medical Colleges, opening of higher courses of study and increase of admission capacity in medical colleges Regulations 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Regulations'). The qualifying criteria mentioned in the 1993 Regulations is in the following terms:QUALIFYING CRITERIAThe eligible organizations shall abide by Indian Medical Council ...
Pagadala Pedda Yadaiah S/O Late Ramaiah and ors. Vs. K. Annapurna W/O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT417
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Since common issues are involved and between same parties these revisions are considered together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in OS 23/95 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. The suit has been filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.10.1995. Respondents 3 and 4 herein and the revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit. 3. The suit was decreed on 6.3.1998 ex parte. The decree to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of these revisions, reads as under:'2. That the defendants do hereby directed to executed a regular sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property on receipt of balance sale consideration and also deliver the physical and vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff no.1, within three months.'4. In terms of the decree above, the plaintiffs are required to pay the ...
Tangirla Ramana @ Venkata Ramana Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by the Public ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)468
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The appellant filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 19/10/1995 made in S.C. No. 49/1992 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Cases triable under S.C & S.Ts (P.A) Act, 1989, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, in holding the accused-appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl - PW-1 and her brother (PW- 2) belong to Gopavaram village of Musunuru Mandal. Dharmayya (PW-2) was studying B.L., at Machilipatnam. PW-1 was staying with her brother (PW-2) at Machilipatnam as she was preparing for X class examination. PW-2 went to his native place on some personal work. Taking the advantage of the absence of PW-2, the accused entered into the house and committed rape on PW-1 at Masula on 16/06/1991 at about 4-00 p.m. and while the accused was committing rape, her brother (PW-2) entered into the house and on seeing him, he ran aw...
Shyam Sunder Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD766; 2001(6)ALT128
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the 5threspondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad vide Proceedings No.c/7006/92, dated 19-11-1997 cancelling the assignment granted in favour of one Mirza Mohammad Ali Baig.2. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land assigned to Mirza Mohammad Ali Baig. The said person was assigned this land under Laoni Rules of 1356-Fasli to an extent of Ac.12.00 in S.No.2/3 of Dasnapur Village, Adilabad Taluk and District.3. It is the case of the petitioner that Mirza Mohammad Ali Baig was granted patta by the District Collector, Adilabad bearing No.156 of 25-4-1356-Fasli under Laoni Rules, 1347-Fasli. The correspondence took place for cancellation of the patta on the ground that he did not cultivate the land within 3 years which is one of the conditions for grant of assignment. But those grounds need not be referred to as the Board of Revenue has directed the authorities not to cancel the patta on that ground and close the file...
Masarath Jahan Begum Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD642; 2001(6)ALT24
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The sole question which arises for consideration in this application is whether a written test can be prescribed in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules'). The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') was enacted consolidating and amending the law relating to motor vehicles. Section 8 of the Act provides for grant of learner's licence. Sub-section (5) of Section 8 reads thus:'No learner's licence shall be issued to any applicant unless he passes to the satisfaction of the licensing authority such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government.'2. It is not in dispute that the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 12 of the Act made rules known as Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 11 of the said rules is in the following text.11. Preliminary test :--(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), every applicant for a learner's licence shall present himself before the licensing authority ...
B. Vanaja Rani Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD80
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners impugned the decision of the fourth respondent - Election officer rejecting their nominations for the post of Sarpanchof Venkatraopalli Gram Panchayat, and Pcddampeta Gram Panchayat, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District respectively. The said decision is confirmed in appeal by the 3rd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether this Court can interfere at this stage, it would be useful to notice few relevant factors.3. The petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi Workers by the duly constituted committee. It is admitted that they have been receiving the honorarium as fixed by the State Government under G.O. Ms. No.79, dated 1-9-1997.4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No.7, dated 7-3-1996 pursuant to the representations made by the Andhra Pradesh Anganwadi Workers and Helpers Union accepting the various demands of the said Union with which we are not concerned for...
Pamula Narsaiah and anr. Vs. Pamula Murali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD393; 2001(6)ALT385
ORDER1. Though the notice was served on the respondents, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through an advocate. Therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of civil revision petition after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of the material placed before this Court. 2. This civil revision petition is filed by respondents 2 and 6/defendants I and 6 aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.291 of 1997 in OS No.89 of 1983 dated 19-11-1998 wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, set aside the report of the Commissioner appointed by his predecessor in IA No.793 of 1987 on the ground that the petitioner in the IA No.291 of 1997 was not given opportunity before executing warrant for division of the property between the parties in the above suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that second respondent filed OS No.89 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff l/3rd share in the suit schedule property. The suit against D10 an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR336(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated October 22, 1999, in I. T. A. No. 998/H of 1994. 2. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm doing business in hatchery. The assessee-firm filed a return of income admitting for the assessment year 1989-90 a taxable income of Rs. 26,540 and agricultural income of Rs. 5,93,478. The assessment was computed on a total income of Rs. 1,45,540. The Assessing Officer while making the assessment allowed depreciation at 100 per cent. on cages worth Rs. 3,16,453. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax revised that order on the ground that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer allowing 100 per cent. depreciation on cages is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, by virtue of the power conferred under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »