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.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD813
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J. 1.The issue, which requires for adjudication in all the writ petitons, is one and the same. Hence, it is felt expedient to dispose of them by this common order.2. The facts, which are not disputed, are as under:3. W.P. Nos. 14568 and 8465 of 2002 are filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') whereas W.P.Nos. 14565 of 2002 and 13424 of 2001 are filed by its dealer. The Corporation established the petrol bunk in an extent of 980 square yards in Sy.Nos. 266/1 and 266/2 co-related T.S. No. 29, Road No. 12 Banjara Hills in the year 1973, which is owned by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No. 14568 of 2002. The Corporation obtained a lease deed in its favour on 12-7-1973 for a period of 20 years with renewal clause and permitted its dealer-6th respondent to run the bunk. In WP No. 14565 of 2002 the petitioner carrying on business of the retail outlet in the name and style of M/s.Hill Top Service Station in the leased area. The Corporation mad...
The Govt. of A.P. and anr. Vs. Dr. B.V.N. Chowdary and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALT106
Bilal Nazki, J.1. In this batch of Writ petitions the Government of Andhra Pradesh challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal in various O.As. The judgment of Tribunal is common and the issues are same, therefore all the Writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. It appears that the respondents who moved the Tribunal as applicants were placed under suspension in terms of various orders and thereafter they filed the O.As before the Tribunal. The orders of suspension were passed by the Government in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule-8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. It was contended before the Tribunal by the applicants in the O.As that the orders of suspension were violative of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts which are material are that, the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau had reported that the District Medical and Health Officers and supporting staff of Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, Krishna, Ananthapur, Adila...
Bysani Anjaneyulu Vs. Trilinga Technical and Management Consultant (Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD570
L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the learned Judge in Company Application No. 475/2001 in C.A. No,53/99 in R.C.C. No. 8 of 1998 dated 13-5-2001. The appellant herein was not a party in the Company Application. He preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:3. The company by name M/s. Ramalingeswara Agro Processor (P) Ltd was ordered to be wound up on the recommendations of the BIFR. In view of the orders passed by the BIFR, RCC No. 8/ 98 came to be instituted in the Company Court. Being one of the creditors of the said Company, the 2nd respondent herein brought out sale of the assets of theCompany in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. After one or two attempts, it emerged that the 1st respondent offered an amount of Rs.42,00,000/-.4. Complaining that the principle laid d...
Zamrud Begum Vs. K. Md. Haneef and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD220; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)707; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)369
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crl. R.P. No. 74 of 1999 as well as the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1850 of 1992 in M.C. No. 21 of 1986 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. 2. A brief resume of background of facts is necessary. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner married the 1st respondent herein under Muslim Law. The petitioner herein presented M.C. No. 21 of 1986 claiming maintenance against the 1st respondent herein. The lower Court granted maintenance. Some amounts were said to have been paid. The order has become final. The 1st respondent herein presented Crl. M.P. No. 1850 of 1992 in M.C. No. 21 of 1986 for cancellation of the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner. The said petition was dismissed on 4-3-1994 and the matter was carried in revision being C.R.P. No. 36 of 1994 before the III Additional Sessions Judge at Kurnool, The III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, through his order date...
K.R. Venkoba Rao Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD822; 2003(1)ALT773
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is interrelated and the parties being one and the same, we are disposing of both the writ petitions by this common order.2. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA Nos.874/1996 and 1673/1998.3. WP No.25176/1998 is filed challenging the judgment dated 11-3-1998 passed by the Tribunal, in OA No.874/1995 and WP No.17513/2001 is filed challenging the judgment dated 14-2-2000 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1673/1998.4. The facts leading to the filing of the O.As. and the writ petitions in brief are as follows:-5. The petitioner was working as Chief Permanent Way Inspector in the South Central Railway. He was eligible andqualified for the next higher post of Assistant Engineer. A notification dated 11-11-1993 proposing to hold selection for formation of the panel in the Civil Engineering Department for promotion...
N. Sathyabalaji Rao Vs. A.P. College Service Commission and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT187
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No. 131 of 1996, dated 14-7-1998.2. By the said judgment, the Tribunal while allowing the O.A., set aside the selection of the 3rd respondent therein to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology, pursuant to the Notification No. 6/95, dated 07-9-1995, and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant therein (the 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 22780 of 1998 and 1st respondent in W.P.No. 15657 of 1999) for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology.3. Writ Petition No. 22870 of 1998 was filed by the 3rd respondent in O.A.No. 131 of 1996 while Writ Petition No. 15657 of 1999 was filed by 1st and 2nd respondents in the said O.A.4. Since the issue involved is common and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is being same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by thi...
S. Chalapathi Vs. Vice Chairman-cum-managing Director, Apsidcl and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD591; 2003(2)ALT653; (2003)IIILLJ286AP
D.S.R. Varma, J. 1. Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is common, we are disposing of all the writ petitions by this common order.2. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions it is stated that pursuant to the introduction of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'V.R.S.') by the respondents, the petitioners who are working in different capacities, opted for the same and accordingly they submitted letters of consent. And this fact is not in dispute. Subsequent to the said letters filed by the petitioners, they changed their mind and with an intention to continue in service, sent letters on different dates withdrawing their option. Now their grievance is that the respondents have rejected to withdraw their option already availed of.3. According to the petitioners, they have sent letters of withdrawal before their consent is accepted by the respondent-Corporation and, therefore they contend that as per Clause 10 of V.R.S., unless the reque...
Big Way Bar and Restaurant Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD99; 2003(2)ALT707; 2003CriLJ1360
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Whether the policy decision taken by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad alleged to be in exercise of the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F and the Rules made thereunder not to grant or renew any amusement licences to the Bars and Restaurants to conduct singing, music and dance programmes from 25.2.2002 other than Four Star and Five Star Hotels and affirmed by the State of Andhra Pradesh would amount to unreasonable restriction offending the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the principal question that arises for consideration in these batch of writ petitions filed by various Bars and Restaurants of the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. 2. In Government of A.P. v. Sri Baldev Sondli. 1975 (2) An.WR 175, a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with a somewhat similar issue involved herein. There the Commissioner of Police rejected the request of a hotel for issue of a place permit for conduct...
T. Manemma Vs. Bokki Shivanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD760; 2003(2)ALT47
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 8.8.2001 in LA. No. 153 of 2001 in A.S. No. 10 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.2. The revision petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit to recover money from the respondent-defendant. During the pendency of the suit, at the instance of the defendant two documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. The Expert opinion was received by the court. Thereafter the defendant requested the trial court by filing an appropriate petition to record the evidence of the Expert by appointing a commissioner. The trial court appointed an Advocate as commissioner to record the evidence of the said Expert. Thereafter the defendant did not pay the remuneration and expenses for the commissioner to go to Delhi and record the evidence of the Expert. Thereafter the petition for appointment of the commissioner was closed by the trial court. Thereafter, on a consideration of evidence adduce...
Kongisi Srinivasulu and anr. Vs. Kongisi Naganna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP297; 2003(6)ALT836
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 29 of 1990 dated 30-9-1991 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool.A short, but important point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Court below erred in not making any distinction between the properties belonging to the debtor that are attachable and liable to be sold and the properties that are to be held by the debtor in terms of Act 7 of 1977 to provide relief to the debtor and whether the Court below erred in going by a principle which is applicable to major sons of a debtor that their properties were not attachable, is not applicable to the properties of the minor sons of the debtor ?The factual matrix that led to filing of the second appeal in brief is as follows :Originally, one Raja Subbaiah (since died) filed a suit being O.S. No. 147 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Dhone, against the 1st respondent herein for recovery of ce...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »