Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Andhra Cements Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL748(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. These four company petitions filed by the alleged creditors of M/s. Andhra Cement Company Ltd., are place before this Court to decide as to whether advertisement of the petitions under Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is to be ordered. As the respondent in all these four company petitions is the same, and the questions of fact and law are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petition averments in a nutshell may be stated treating the company petition No. 14 of 2002 filed by M/s. Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., as illustrative case. Be it also noted that all the other company petitions contain similar averments. The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling laterlite mineral which is a raw material used in the manufacture of cement. The petitioner and respondent-company have business dealings since 1988-89. The respondent-company used to place purchase orders with the petitioner-company on yearly basis from 1...
Posani Subbaiah Vs. Doppalalpudi Chilakamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD370; 2004(2)ALT475
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 110/73 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, is the appellant. 2. The suit was instituted for cancellation and setting aside the decree in O.S. No. 45/64 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Guntur, which was confirmed by the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 281/69, dated 25-6-1973 by the High Court, as not binding on the plaintiff and the 8th defendant in the suit and for possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants, except the 8th defendant and for rendition of accounts as to the realization of profits from the schedule property from 29-10-1973 till date of delivery and for costs of the suit from the defendants, except the 8th defendant. 3. The respective pleadings of the parties are no doubt very elaborate. But however, since several factual details had been narrated in the respective pleadings, it will be appropriate to deal with the respective pleadings at the first instance. 4. The plaintiff h...
K.V.V. Krishna Rao Vs. the State of A.P. and ors., Rep. by Its Princip ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT32a; 2003CriLJ2894
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This writ petition is filed to declare the G.O. Rt. No. 1233 Home (Police-F) Department dated 24-5-1996 issued by the 1st respondent-Government and the consequential proceedings in Roc. No. 5081/ 98(C1) dated 3-6-1996 issued by the 3rd respondent -- Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari, District, as illegal and arbitrary and further to direct the 4th respondent -- Assistant Public Prosecutor to continue the prosecution launched against the 5th respondent and 30 others in Crime No. 59/1994 of Pedapadu Police Station.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the de facto complainant. He lodged a complaint against 31 persons, complaining offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 438, 307, 323 read with 506, IPC in Crime No. 59/1994 on the file of Pedapadu Police Station and the same was taken into cognizance by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Eluru and numbered as P.R.C. No. 64/1995. Before the matter was committed t...
M. Anuradha Vs. J. Venkatarama
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD165
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. These two transfer CMPs are filed by the Petitioner-wife under Section 23(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of O.P. No. 5 of 2002 and O.P. No. 265 of 2002 filed by the Respondent-husband on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District and Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District respectively, to the file of the Family Court, Bangalore for consideration and disposal.Out of the above two OPs., O.P. No. 5 of 2002 is filed for divorce, whereas the other O.P. No. 265 of 2002 is filed for the custody of the minor children.2. According to the petitioner, she is working as a Software Engineer in Axes Technologies (India) Private Limited, Koramangala, Bangalore. The petitioner's marriage with the respondent was solemnisedas per Hindu rites at Ramachandrapuram, BHEL on 19-12-1992 and during their wedlock two children were born. The respondent is none other than the brother of the petitioner's mother.Though in the petition...
Tirupati Co-operative Town Bank Limited Vs. Registrar of Co-operative ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT16
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. The grievance of the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Bank, is that the earlier Enquiry Officer i.e., the 2nd respondent had dropped all the charges against the 3rd respondent, who is an employee of the bank, which is against the interest of the bank.3. It appears that subsequently the petitioner ordered de novo enquiry to be conducted by 2nd respondent herein, who has been acting as the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Chittoor. When he refused to conduct the enquiry on the ground that already an enquiry was conducted and the same was dropped, the petitioner-bank filed the present writ petition.4. The facts in brief are that the 2nd respondent who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer had dropped all the charges against the 3rd respondent, on the ground that there was no co-operation from the bank, which according to the petitioner is not correct. Hence, the petitioner wanted to initiate enquiry afresh for various reasons and hence some ...
Bunga Satyam Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2005ACJ58
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by an unsuccessful claimant against the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 11 of 1995..2. The facts leading to the filing of the application and preferring of this appeal are briefly as follows:Applicant is the father of the deceased boy aged about 21 years who was studying in B.Sc. 1st year. The deceased boy travelled in Tirumala Express on 24.3.1995 and after reaching Poolla Railway Station he jumped from the train in his anxiety to alight at the railway station, though there was no halt for the train. On account of the fall, he sustained injuries and died instantaneously. Therefore, the applicant made a claim for Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) towards compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 ('the Act' for brevity).3. The respondent while resisting the claim contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of Tirumala Express on 24.3.1995 from Nidadavolu to Eluru Railway Station, that the applica...
Yenkey Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and anr. Vs. Bhagyanagar Chlo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)119; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)194
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. It is represented by the petitioner that the court below ordered non-bailable warrants in a casual way even though petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., was filed by the petitioner for dispense with the attendance of the accused. It is further stated that the court below dismissed the application No. 6747 of 2002 on 28.11.2002 making the following order:'Heard. No urgency to condone absence as coming for examination. Petition is dismissed.' 3. It is further stated that reasons had been explained as to why the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court. It is stated that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short, to recall the warrant, bearing No. 6866 of 2002 on 2.12.2002 by giving all relevant information and also filed doctor's prescription. But, however, the said applica...
Choday Sanyasi Rao, Hpc Retail Outlet Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD692; 2003(4)ALT359; 2003(3)ARBLR58(AP)
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner originally to declare the letter bearing No. VRO/BAK/RET dated 16.9.2002 issued by the respondent-Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and inoperative. Later, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent-Corporation in Ref.VRO/ BAK//RET dated 5.10.2002 by way of amendment. The prayer was granted as per Court order dated 11.10.2002 in W.P.M.P. No. 25154 of 2002.3. The parties will be referred to by their status in the Writ Petition.4. The petitioner herein is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 on 3.4.2002 and entered into an agreement with the respondent-Corporation on 10.4.2002 to sell all its petroleum products in retail at Samalkot in East Godavari District. The petitioner'...
Sri. Mukesh Gupta, Managing Director, Offshore Financial Services Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)261; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)147; II(2003)BC332; [2003]114CompCas728(AP); [2003]44SCL542(AP)
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These two Criminal Petitions are filed by one Mukesh Gupta - Accused No. 14 in C.C. No. 1814/98 and C.C. No. 1321 of 1998 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.2. The 1st respondent - complainant filed the above cases stating that the petitioner - Accused No. 14 also had committed the offence under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'. The allegations made in C.C. No. 1814/1998 are to the effect that the 1st respondent - Accused No. 1 Company, represented by Accused No. 2, availed bill discounting facility with the 1st respondent to a tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and requested the 1st respondent for discounting the bills of M/s. Sun Farm Dairies - Accused No. 5, for Rs.25,00,000/- for a period of 90 days which has fallen due or payment on 20-4-1997. It is further alleged that the accused had executed a promissory note dated 20-1-1997. It was also averred...
Jannuchander Babu Vs. Manchikatla Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD640; 2003(6)ALT589
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision Petitioner filed O.S. No. 1122 of 2001 for injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over 230 Sq.Yds. in S.No. 296 of Desaipet village, specified in the boundaries mentioned in the Schedule appended to the plaint, which hereinafter would be referred to as 'the suit land', and filed IA No. 1372 of 2001 therein seeking an injunction, during the pendency of the suit, restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over the suit land. Thecontention of the respondents is that they purchased the suit land and its adjacent land from the revision petitioner and others and that they, but not the revision petitioner, are in possession of the suit land. Exs.P.1 to P.4 on behalf of revision petitioner and Ex.R.1 on behalf of respondents were marked during enquiry. Both the Courts below concurrently held that revision petitioner is not entitled to the injunction sought. Hence this revision....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »