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.
B.G. Laxman (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT3
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. Both the writ appeals are directed against the same judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7-12-2000 in W.P.No. 15242 of 1999. Writ Appeal No. 121 of 2001 is by writ petitioners 1 to 6 whereas Writ Appeal No. 122 of 2001 is by writ petitioners 7 to 12.2. The dispute relates to a mutation ordered by the Mandal Revenue Officer by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) (for short 'the Act'). The mutation was ordered by the Mandal Revenue Officer by his order dt. 10-12-1996. The said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer has been confirmed both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The learned single Judge of this Court has also dismissed the writ petition wherein the validity of those orders was called in question by the writ appellants.3. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: Res...
N. Chandrakala Vs. R. Jyothi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD206
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. A short but interesting point that arises for consideration in this transfer petition is whether a matter pending before the Court of Small Causes can be transferred to a regular Civil Court for disposal or not.2. The factual background that led to the filing of this transfer petition is as follows:- The respondent herein filed three suits i.e., S.C. No. 684 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, O.S. Nos. 6253 and 6254 of 2001 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of certain amounts on the basis of promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. Even though all the three suits are filed against one and the same defendant, because of the variation in the suit amounts, one suit (i.e., S.C. No. 684 of 2001) had to be instituted in City Small Causes Court and the other two suits (O.S. Nos. 6253 and 6...
Mohd. GyasuddIn Vs. Jahangir Karanjaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)659; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)1; 2003CriLJ966
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Order dismissing Crl.M.P. No. 3259 of 2002 in C.C. No. 649 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is the subject matter of this petition.2. Private complaint filed by the petitioner against 1st respondent and others, for offences under Sections 420, 498A read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition act, was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police laid a charge sheet for offences under Section 498A read with Section 120-B I.P.C. against the 1st respondent and others. On a petition filed by the 1st respondent for discharge on the ground that there is no material on record to frame a charge against him i.e., 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate discharged the 1st respondent from the case. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl.R.P. No. 40 of 2000 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judg...
Chaitanya Samkshema Sangham Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALT54
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition is filed by one Chaitanya Sankshema Sangham, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, represented by its Secretary, impleading State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada; Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban Mandal, Vijayawada and the Village Administrative Officer, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, as respondents 1 to 4 respectively. After filing of the writ petition, respondents 5 to 11 impleaded themselves as party-respondents by filing W.P.M.P.No. 21910 of 2001, which was ordered by this Court on 9-9-2002. In the writ petition, the following reliefs are sought:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records culminating in issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 9-3-2001 from the concerned authorities and the Special Court and issue an appropriate writ, order o...
Y. Chenna Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD323; 2002(6)ALT93; 2003(1)ARBLR384(AP)
ORDERN.V. Ramanam, J. 1. The applicant is a Railway Contractor. He filed this Arbitration Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the claims/disputes, which arose between him and the respondents. 2. The applicant was awarded a contract under an agreement dated 27-10-1998. The nature of the work is Guntakal-Wadi Section, replacement of bridge timbers with new steel channel sleepers for Br.No. 1017 at KM 536/4-537/5 (36 x 19.20 M.'G'), between Mantralayam Road - Hanumapur (1092 sleepers of 2.6 m length)'. The value of the work is Rs.58,26,960/-. The work was to be completed within six months. As the respondents did not supply the material required for executing the work, the applicant could not complete the work in time, and the currency of the contract was extended. The applicant completed the work on 26-9-2000. Though the applicant received some payments, he raised certain claims, and in that re...
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Its Principal Secretar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT81
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since all of them are directed against the common judgment dated 12-7-2002 made in O.A. No. 9461 of 2001 and Batch by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.2. Aggrieved by the said common Judgment of the Tribunal, the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government together with the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly pray for issuance of a writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to and connected with the said common judgment of the Tribunal and quash the same.3. In order to consider the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition:4. The respondents in this batch of writ petitions are the Inspecto...
Dr. M. Satyanarayana Reddy and anr. Vs. Rukma Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALT248
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 58/82 on the file of District Judge, Adilabad, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the trial Court had preferred the above Appeal and defendants 5 to 9 had preferred the Cross Objections wherein they had questioned the marriage of Rajeshwar Reddy with the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.2. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants only as shown in O.S.No. 59/82.3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of 22/45th share in the plaint schedule properties. The trial Court after the respective pleadings of the parties and settlement of Issues had examined P.W.1 to P.W.5, D.W.1 to D.W.12 and had marked Exs.A-1 to A-16 and also Exs.B-1 to B-173 and ultimately had passed a preliminary decree and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal and the Cross-Objections had been preferred.4. The plaintiffs had pleaded in the plaint as follows:The suit prop...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mandapalli Gangaratnam Alia ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC533; 2003(3)ALD328
V.V.S. Rao, J. 1. All these CMAs involve common questions of fact and law and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. Except CMA No. 1500 of 2001, all the CMAs arise out of common order dated 17.1.2000 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry, in MVOP No. 353 of 1995 and seven other MVOPs. CMA No. 1500 of 2001 arises out of order in MVOP No. 370 of 1995. 2. The facts in brief are as follows. About 30 persons were travelling in thelorry bearing. No. ATO 6219 on 7.2.1995 at about 7.30 a.m., when they were going to Rajahmundry towards Bhadrachalam being driven by one Marampudi Raju due to rash and negligent driving the lorry turned turtle on the ghatroad near Tulasipakalu Village. In the said accident eight persons died and sixteen persons were injured. The dependents of the deceased, and the injured filed different MVOPs. 3. The Insurance Company, the third respondent in the MVOPs...
Ketha Venkata Swamy (Musalayya) Vs. Bhaskara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT46; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)518
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Both the writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since the relief prayed for therein is one and the same. The parties in both the writ petitions are common. W.P. No. 19666 of 1999 is taken on file on the strength of a letter addressed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3785 of 2000. Thereafter, the very same individual filed W.P. No. 3785 of 2000.2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in torturing the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner accordingly prays for grant of appropriate consequential directions to the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay him an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-towards compensation for violation of his fundamental rights and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and ...
Vishwanadhulu Lingaiah Vs. Vishwanadhulu Kavitha and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)649; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)97; 2003CriLJ961; II(2003)DMC283
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This petition is filed questioning the order dated 21-1-2002 in Criminal R.P. No. 5 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.2. The wife of the petitioner filed M.C. No. 11 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda seeking maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter i.e., 1st respondent, alleging that after the birth of the 1st respondent, petitioner drove her out of the marital house with a demand for more money. The case of the petitioner is that since he obtained a decree of divorce in O.P. No. 2 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, mother of 1st respondent is not entitled to maintenance and since 1st respondent is being maintained by her mother she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate ordered payment of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the 1st respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »