Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Dr. Satyanarayana S. Melkote and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD377; 2003(4)ALT270
V.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Dr. G.S. Melkote, a freedom fighter initially filed the suit being O.S.No. 603 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Judge and later the same was transferred to the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, as O.S. No. 49 of 1980. During the pendency of the suit, Dr. G.S. Melkote (GSM) died and his legal representatives - three sons and two daughters, plaintiffs 2 to 6 were brought on record. The suit was filed for declaration and consequential injunction in respect ofthe suit schedule property mainly on the ground of adverse possession. The land ad measuring 3250 Sq.yds. bearing Municipal No. 3-5-80/1 situated at Narayanaguda is the suit schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession over and above 30 years and that the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) were not complied with b...
Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Ce ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD468
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Both the delinquent employee and the Management being aggrieved by the Order of the learned single Judge dated 2-11-2000 in Writ Petition No. 18660 of 1998 have preferred these writ appeals.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the delinquent-employee and the learned Counsel for the Management, we do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the discretionary order made by the learned single Judge. We say this because the learned Judge has pointed out that the misconduct relating to the unauthorised absence attributed to theemployee is satisfactorily proved. At the same time, the learned Judge has also pointed out that the extreme penalty of dismissal could not be sustained firstly in terms of Rule 156(b)(iii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, which states that in case the charge of unauthorised absence of an employee is proved, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a delinquent-employee is removal from service and that the Rules do not authorise ...
Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Dealers Association and ors. Vs. Governm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP134; 2002(6)ALD530
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the Association of A.P. Motor Vehicles Dealers. Petitioners 2 to 8 are the dealers of Motor Vehicles, particularly, in three wheelers, having their business at Hyderabad. Petitioners 9 to 15 are the employees of the dealers, who have figured as petitioners 2 to 8. They challenge the order of the 2nd respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 137, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-II) Department dated 6-8-2002, as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent restricted the number of three wheeled contract carriages at Hyderabad to 68,467 as on 5-9-2002 and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad, 4th respondent, to restrict the number of three wheeled contract carriages to that number, it was further directed that no new permit shall be granted t...
D. Narsimhulu Vs. A.P. Legislative Assembly and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD747
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Writ Petition No. 7214 of 2002 is filed by D. Narasimhulu assailing the validity of the notice bearing Memo No. 853/P.P. 1/2001, dated 28.3.2002 and the subsequent order issued in G.O. Rt. No. 730, dated 20.6.2002 reverting him to the post of Reporter from the post of Assistant Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. Writ Petition No. 11264 of 2002 is filed by Sri S. Raja Sadaram questioning the validity of the Government Order G.O. Rt. No. 730, Legislature (O.P.I) Secretariat, dated 20.6.2002 reverting him to the post of Chief Reporter from the post of Assistant Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. Since facts and questions of law that arise for decision are substantially similar, both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The substantive questions that were raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are : (i) the impugned action taken by the Secretary of the...
Swatantra Private Security Sibbandi Sangham Vs. Regional Manager, Glob ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD471; (2003)ILLJ518AP
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal should not detain us any long. The appellant is the Swatantra Private Security SibbandiSangham represented by its General Secretary, Visakhapatnam, and it filed Writ Petition No. 8334 of 1996 praying for the following relief:'.................. to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly a Writ in the nature of 'mandamus' declaring (i) the appointment of Contractor for the purpose of security staff for watch and ward at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Visakha Terminal, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not treating the petitioner security staff mentioned in the annexure as the employees of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., on par with the security staff at the terminals like Kandala, Shakur Basti Depot (Delhi), Buz-Buz (Calcutta), who are being treated as the employees of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., by the respondents 2 and 3 as illegal and ...
Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, Sriramsagar Projec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD559
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. These three Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs), filed under Section 115 CPC, arise under identical set of facts and involve same question of law. Hence, they are disposed of through common order.2. The lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Badgoni Village of Nandipet Mandal of Nizamabad District, were acquired by the Government through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') in G.O. Rt. No. 1063 dated 19-10-1970. The same was published in the Gazette on 8-4-1971. Award was passed by the petitioner fixing the compensation payable to the respondents. Not being satisfied with the compensation, the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner referred the cases to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, the same were taken up and tried as OP. Nos. 176 of 1979 and batch. The compensation awarded by the petitioner herein was enhanced by the Sub-Court, through its common ju...
Gupta Enterprises Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD412; 2002(6)ALT661
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. These two Writ Appeals by M/s. Gupta Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner M.M. Gupta, Eluru and by its Manager K. Sreenivas respectively are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 8589 of 2002 and W.P. No. 18868 of 2001 respectively. As both the appeals are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. We have heard Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent - M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises as also the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.3. Briefly noted, the facts leading to the controversy are as follows:4. The Executive Officer of Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Simhachalam, one of the respondents in both the writ petitions, issued a tender notification on 25.2.2001 for conduct of public auction on 14.3.2001 for collection of hu...
Nagarjuna Grameena Bank Vs. Mandulla Beerappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD760; 2003(2)ALT180; (2003)ILLJ909AP
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred by the Management of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank calling in question the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 3-4-1998 in Writ Petition No. 8036 of 1992.2. The above writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein, who is the delinquent, assailing action taken the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant disciplinary action taken by the Management of the appellant-Bank dismissing him from service as a disciplinary measure. The respondent while working as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier at Anjanapalli Branch was issued with a Charge Memo dated 30-12-1986, which reads as follows:'During your incumbency as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier at our Anjanapalli Branch, you are reported to have committed several serious irregularities. Those which have come to light are detailed hereunder:(a) It is alleged that you had on 12th February, 1986 absconded with a cash of Rs. 3,15,000/- drawn from our Anjanapalli Branch intended f...
Bada Bodaiah and anr. Vs. Bada Lingaswamy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD790
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order dated 4.7.2002 made in LA. No. 548 of 2000 in O.S. No. 182 of 1996 refusing to receive certain documents filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. 2. The petitioners field O.S. No. 182 of 1986 for perpetual in injunction. They also obtained an ad interim injunction, which was ultimately confirmed by this Court by ordering status quo in CRP No. 3857 of 1999 dated 27.1.2000. The petitioners examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and closed their evidence. When the matter was coming up for the defence evidence, the petitioners filed I.A.No. 548 of 2000 under Rule 2 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity) praying the Court to receive the lease deed, sale deed and certified copies of the pahanies for the year 1971-74 by condoning the delay in filing the same. They alleged that the documents which were filed along with I.A.No. 548 of 2000 were already filed before the Inams Tribunal duly paying the penalty a...
Y. Venkata Reddy Vs. Jagadamba Enterprises Rep. by Its Manager Vilas M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)329; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)212; [2003]44SCL35(AP)
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law arise and since petitioner and 1st respondent in all the cases are the same in these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Petitioner in all these cases issued 13 cheques, all in favour of the 1st respondent, on various dates, which were dishonoured. After issuing statutory notice to the petitioner, 1st respondent lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the cases and issued summons to the petitioner. Petitioner filed petitions in each case under Section 204 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the cases, inter alia, contending that the complaints filed by the complainant through its Manager, who has not been properly authorized to represent the 1st respondent, which is a proprietory concern, are not maintainable. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petitions. Questioning the said order, petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »