Andhra Pradesh Court October 2002 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.
V.K. Ferro Alloys (Private) Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD10; 2003(2)ALT620
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to rebate in power tariff for the additional two years to be met out of the industries budget as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 375 Industries and Commerce (LA.) Department, dated 23-8-1985 and consequently direct the respondents to release to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 24,89,937-00 and Rs. 17,68,097-00 towards 25% power tariff rebate for the 4th and 5th years respectively after commencement of regular production together with interest at 18% per annum. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. It is contended that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of Ferro Chrome at Visakhapatnam and was registered for availing industrial incentives provided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O. Ms. No. 375 Industries and Commerce (LA.) Department dated 23-8-1985 (for short 'the G.O.'), bywhich, the concessi...
T. Praveena and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT112
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners filed this writ appeal against the order dated 25-07-2002 in W.P. No. 9833 of 2002 of the learned Single Judge of this court.2. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, in not finally determining the boundary between the land of the 5th respondent-The Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and the 2nd and 3rd respondents-Commandant, 1st Battalion, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, respectively, situated in T.S. No. 3/Part, Block A and Ward 9, Shaikpet, Hyderabad; and not preventing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from encroaching the land of the 5th respondent allotted to the appellants-petitioners as illegal and arbitrary; and to direct the 1st respondent to finally demarcate...
A. Devi Vs. Ch. Janaki and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT44
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 21-8-2001 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kurnool in I.A.No. 556 of 2000 in O.P.No. 334 of 1996.2. The petitioner is a widow. Her husband died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal to award just compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by filing MVOP No. 334 of 1996, but the said petition was dismissed for default. Then she filed a petition to set aside the said dismissal order and since there was a delay of 732 days in filing the said petition, she filed I.A. No. 556 of 2000 Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay of 732 days. The reason assigned was that due to mistake and oversight she has not filed the petition in time. The trial Court held the delay has not been properly explained in the affidavit and therefo...
S. Venkatareddy and ors. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD159; 2003(2)ALT377
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') against the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/2013/ 2000 dated 3-3-2001.2. This Court while ordering Notice before admission of the CRP on 25-6-2001 granted status quo as to possession as on that day in CMP No. 11676 of 2001. Later, on 3-10-200], the CRP was admitted. The petitioners alleging that the fourth respondent in the CRP has violated the said status quo orders granted by this Court, they have filed CC No.829 of 2002. Along with said Contempt Case, the CRP has also been posted before me for hearing. Both the Counsel advanced their arguments in the CRP also.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners herein have filed the above appeal in Case No. F2/2013/2000 dated 3-3-2001 before the first respondent questioning the orders of the second re...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD662; [2003]113CompCas129(AP); [2003]41SCL301(AP)
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.Introduction 1. This application, filed by one of the respondents in R.C.C. No. 2 of 1995 i.e. Syndicate Bank, under Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') raises an important question as to the right of a secured creditor to seek transfer or assets to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), By this application, the applicant seeks a direction to the Official Liquidator to transfer all the assets, moveable and immoveable properties and liquid cash of A.P. Steels Limited-1st respondent company to the Recovery Officer of the DRT as per R.P. No. 90 of 2002, on the file of the DRT. The applicant also seeks stay of all further proceedings in C.A. No. 354 of 2002 in RCC No. 2 of 1995.Facts in brief 2. It is the case of the applicant that they filed OA No. 925 of 1999 before the DRT, Hyderabad, for recovery of Rs.2,91,27,334/-, that in the said application all the other respondents, except 9th respondent herein are parties, that one of the respondents...
Srinivasa Hatcheries Vs. Agricultural Market Committee and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD640; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)656; 2003CriLJ518
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner, who is accused in S.T.C. No. 28/2001 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 2. A brief resume of the backgrounds of facts is necessary. The petitioner is running a business in Hatcheries at Gunkalam Village, Bhogapuram Mandal. The petitioner is represented by its Managing Director, Mr. K. Ashok Reddy. It is alleged by the 1st respondent that the petitioner was doing the business without licence for the period from 1997-98 to 2000-2001 as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) and Act No. 4 of 1987. Therefore, it was called upon to obtain a licence. Since the petitioner did not obtain license, prosecution was launched in S.T.C. No. 28/2001 for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Act No. 4 of 1987. The learned Magist...
Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT550; [2003]114CompCas563(AP); [2003]42SCL798(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 in OS No. 61 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram are the appellants and the plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent.2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the trial Court for the purpose of convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit in OS No. 184 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada which was renumbered as OS No. 61 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,882.40 ps towards balance of the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 30-3-1982 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 40,000 repayable with interest at 24 per cent p.a. together with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.3. In the trial Court on the strength of respective pleadings of the parties, framed issues. On behalf of the plaintiff PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked. Likewise on behalf of the defendant...
Priyatam Sen Vs. Kanchana Siva Prasad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)841; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)174; III(2004)BC565
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is an application to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 50 of 2002 of Vellur P.S. of Cuddapah District.2. Representation dated 12-6-2002 given to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, by the 1st respondent was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah with an endorsement to get a case registered and investigated after perusing the relevant records, which in turn was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellur P.S. with a direction to register a case under the relevant Section of law and to take up investigation. Consequently the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellur P.S. registered the said complaint as Crime No. 50 of 2002 under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The case, in brief, of the 1st respondent is that he and his brother V. Subba Rayudu are carrying on business in Dupion Silk under the name and style of Krishna Silk Fabrics and have business transactions with the petitioner, who is the proprietor...
G. Sri Hari Vs. Nandkishore Lahoti and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)646; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)556; 2003CriLJ643
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Srihari Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore, which has business transactions with the 1st respondent in his capacity as the partner of Laxmi Venkatesh Industries, a partnership firm at Warangal. In connection with those business transactions, petitioner issued some cheques to the 1st respondent, which were dishonoured for want of funds. Thereafter 1st respondent, after issuing the statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act), filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another who is the Chairman of Srihari Mills Private Limited, for offences under Section 138 of the Act and Section 420 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the police, Geesukonda P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and the same was registered as Crime No. 152 of 1995 under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Act. Prior to that, during the absence of 1st respondent, the...
D. Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. I. Suryakanthamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT759
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The 10th defendant in O.S.No. 77/80 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram had filed A.S.No. 1910/87. The 8th defendant in the said suit likewise preferred A.S.No. 2802/87 and since both these Appeals arise out of the same Judgment, both the Appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.2. The 1st respondent in these Appeals -plaintiff in the suit, filed O.S.No. 77/80 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and the averments in the plaint are as follows.3. 1st defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. The property shown in the schedule measuring Ac. 1-54 cents and other lands originally belonged to Basula Peraiah. These properties were got by him in the family partition which was effected on 25-2-1959. The said Peraiah executed a Will dated 18-9-1963 in a sound and disposing state of mind. As per the terms of the said Will, the schedule properties are to be enjoyed by Smt. Balsu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »