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.
Gunti Devaiah and ors. Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1881; 2003(6)ALT300
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. All the appeals can be disposed of by common order. The appeals are filed by the claimants on a very limited issue as to the liability of the insurance company.2. The claimants travelled in a trailer as coolies on 8.6.1993 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, it turned turtle and consequently all the occupants in the trailer received injuries and, therefore, they laid claims for compensation.3. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal further recorded that since the tractor was insured and trailer was not insured, the liability was fastened only on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was absolved of the liability. Aggrieved by the said order to the extent of absolving the insurance company from the liability, the above appeals are filed by the claimants contending that ...
S. Subbaiah Vs. Narasiah, Head Constable and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)940; 2002(6)ALT628
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. One S. Subbaiah of Nellore District, by telegram, dated 01-10-2002, brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, that his brother Sarvepalli Sreenivasulu s/o Rarnaiah r/o Kota, was taken away by the Head Constable by name Narasaiah of Kota Police Station, from the premises of R.D.O., Gudur, while he was coming out of the Sub-Jail, Gudur, at about 06-15 p.m., on 28-09-2002, after obtaining bail in Crime No. 103 of 2001 and detained him in the Police Station without producing him before the Magistrate. He also stated in the telegram that his brother is likely to be implicated in some false cases and his life is in danger. Stating so he sought for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the alleged detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.2. As per the version of the respondents one M. Srinivas Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Kota Police Station, found the alleged detenu moving in suspicious conditions at...
S. Laxma Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD517; 2002(6)ALT675
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioners herein who are practising advocates in the District Court, Mehboobnagar, have filed these writ petitions aggrieved of the process of decision making of the Government in appointing the 3rd respondent as Public Prosecutor for the third term for the Court of Sessions Judge, Mehboobnagar through G.O. Rt. No. 587 (L.A&J.; Courts.A.2) Department dated 13.5.2002, as per Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the administrative instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 187 Law (L) Department, dated 6.12.2000, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post or till termination of his services whichever is earlier. 2. Before going into the merits of the cases, it is apposite to consider the power and pivotal position of the Public Prosecutor. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for the Bench, in the case of Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment and Ors., : 1980CriLJ1084 , held the Public Pr...
V. Chandrasekhara Naidu Vs. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD597; 2002(6)ALT484
Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ. 1. Both the writ appeals were filed by V. Chandrasekhara Naidu, respondent No. 3 in both the Writ Petition Nos.3853 of 2002 and 5233 of 2002. The said two writ petitions were filed by Ms. P.Jhansi and T.Ravi respectively for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam represented by the Executive Officer in selecting and appointing the third respondent V. Chandrasekhara Naidu as A.P.R.O. vide proceedings dated 16.2.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to the official respondents to appoint the writ petitioner in each writ petition as A.P.R.O. in pursuance to the selections held on 15.2.2002.2. The factual matrix of the case which led to the filing of these writ appeals is that the writ petitioner in No. 3853 of 2002 Ms. P. Jhansi applied for the post of A.P.R.O. in T.T.D. in pursuance to the notification published in Eenadu daily. She is a post-graduate in Mass Communication and Journalism an...
A. Aruna and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD548; 2003(2)ALT770
S.R. Nayak, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners initially questioned the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short 'Amendment Act 23 of 1995') by which the levy and collection of life tax has been enhanced from 5% to 7% on the cost of the vehicle on four wheelers which are used for personal purpose. After hearing this batch of writ petitions, when the Court pointed out that by Amendment Act 23/1995, the Legislature has only enhanced the rate of life tax from 5% to 7%, but the method of computing life tax on the basis of the unladen weight and value of the vehicle was introduced in case of four wheelers by Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1992 (for short 'Amendment Act 11, of 1992') and that Amendment Act 11 of 1992 was not challenged, some of the petitioners amended the prayers in the writ petitions so as to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment Act 11/1992 also.2. Before dealing with...
Maddi Bal Reddy and ors. Vs. Merugu Anthamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD772
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. The revision petitioners assail the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 as regards the proper Court fee to be paid on the plaint. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who seek to file the suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 for cancellation of the decree in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhongir. The earlier suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 was filed on 28.4.1987 for declaration of title in respect of dry land measuring 30-00 acres. The said suit was decreed on 19.4.1988. Basing upon the knowledge of the decree, the plaintiffs who are not the parties thereto are now impugning the said decree in the present suit. In the process, they valued the suit at the rate at which the property was valued in the former suit. On an objection taken by the defendants about the inadequacy of the valuation in the present suit, the Court below after having heard either sid...
Madakam Kiranmai Vs. District Collector and Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD592
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner was issued a Social Status Certificate on 4-6-1996 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palavancha, Khammam district, the 3rd respondent herein, certifying that she belongs to Schedule Tribes Community. On the strength of the same, she was selected for admission into M.B.B.S., course in the year 1998. At the time of admission, the Certificate was to be signed afresh by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Accordingly the petitioner is stated to have approached the 3rd respondent on 3-8-1998. It is alleged that instead of signing it, the 3rd respondent seized the same. Aggrieved by that action, the petitioner filed WP No. 24 784 of 1998. Pursuant to the interim order passed therein, the Certificate was restored to the petitioner and the writ petition was accordingly closed, through order dated 5-10-1998.2. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 9-12-1998 by the 1st respondent directing her to show-cause as to why the Social Status Certificate ...
Osmania University Vs. B. Laxman
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD306
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Osmania University represented by its Registrar, beingaggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.9.1999 in WP No. 4158 of 1998, has preferred this writ appeal. The respondent herein viz., B. Lakshman filed the above writ petition under Article 226 praying for the following relief: 'Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned letter contained in No. 4685/619/76/Esst.I dated 20.12.1997 issued by the respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, unconstitutional, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent herein to consider the claims of the petitioner herein for the post of Assistant Registrar in the resp...
Nicholas Piramal India Limited Vs. Cultor Food Science Inc. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP254; 2003(1)ALT312
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This petition is filed to review the common order dated 12-12-2001 in AAO No. 1285 of 2001 and CRP No. 3497 of 2001.2. For the sake of convenience we would hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the appeal.3. At the outset we express our regret for signing the common order, sought to be reviewed, without correcting the typographical errors and mistakes that crept therein, which are noticed by us during the hearing of this petition. Since as per Section 152 CPC, Court has power to correct such errors, we order the following corrections in the common order dated 12-12-2001 reported in : 2002(1)ALD154 .(i) In page 2 'para 3 line 9' delete the word 'and' after WELTOL PLUS' and before 'culminated'. (ii) In para 4 at page 3 'lines 18 and 19' delete the sentence reading 'whatever strong words they are made, are not sufficient to establish fraud or misrepresentation the allegation of fraud' and substitute the sentence 'in however strong words they might h...
Parbanna (deceased by L.R's.) and Ors. Vs. Veershetty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP191; 2002(6)ALT389
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This second appeal was preferred under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in A.S. 23 of 1995 modifying the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Zaheerabad delivered in O.S. 225 of 1998.2. This appeal was filed with an application to condone the delay of 285 days in C.M.P. No. 16332 of 2002. This Court allowed the said condone delay petition. Hence, the matter has been coming up today before this Court for admission.3. Sri K. Subramanyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the appellants submits that the second appeal was filed with an application to condone the delay in filing this second appeal; that unless and until the application for condonation of delay is condoned, the second appeal cannot be registered and hence in such a case there is no question of following the procedure laid down under Order 41, Rule 9, C.P.C. as amended by the Code of Civil Proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »