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.
K. Menakenathana Reddy, Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and anr. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT174
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge having opined that the appellants herein who are respondents 1 and 2 in the contempt case have committed contempt of the Court's order dt. 16-8-1988 in W.P.No. 10938 of 1988, found them guilty of the contempt of court and accordingly, convicted them under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.2. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants herein that having regard to the judgments of the Full Bench in W.P.No. 9776 of 1993 and in L. Venkateswara Rao v. Singareni Collieries, : 1993(3)ALT199 , the directions of the learned Single Judge issued in W.P.No. 10938 of 1988 were not complied with. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that unfortunately for the State and the appellants herein, the provisions of Rule 10 of the A.P. Minor...
M.S.S.R. Sastry Vs. Director, Central Tobacco Research Institute and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD46; [2003(96)FLR425]
S.R. Nayak, J.1. A simple and short question that arises for our consideration and decision is whether the petitioner who is promoted to the post of Junior Clerk against the vacancy arising out of 5% of posts which are required to be filled by the method of seniority-cum-merit, can claim seniority over and above respondents 2 to 4 who are juniors to the petitioner in the feeder cadre but who had made entry to the post of Junior Clerk against 5% of vacancies which are required to be filled by conducting departmental competitive examination ?2. The Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought by him. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we cannot take any exception to the view taken by the learned Tribunal.3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when respondents 2 to 4 were promoted to the post of Junior Clerk, the petitioner was out of employment because he was retrenched, but subseque...
Commissioner of Sericulture and anr. Vs. A. Narasimha Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT178; (2003)IILLJ444AP
S.R. Nayak, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel, the main writ petition itself was heard finally and the same is being disposed of by this order.2. This writ petition is preferred by the Commissioner of Sericulture, Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation (Sericulture) Department calling in question the legality and validity of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 12.9.2002 in OA No. 7913 of 2002. The above O.A was preferred by the 1st respondent herein. After holding a regular departmental enquiry against the 1st respondent, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him on the basis of a proved misconduct, as a disciplinary measure. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent preferred the above OA before the Tribunal questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding and the resultant disciplinary action taken against him. By the i...
M.V. Krishna Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP81; 2003(1)ARBLR446(AP)
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued tender notification dated 4-5-2002 inviting tenders for sale of leasehold rights to collect toll fee at road-cum-rail bridge, Rajahmundry, for the period from 1-5-2002 to 31-3-2004, fixing 16-5-2002 as the last date for receiving the tenders as well as date of auction. Only one sealed tender was received; whereas the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and several persons have offered their bids. On the ground that the tenders and bids were not up to the expectation, the further proceedings were given up. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 have undertaken negotiations with certain participants and have decided to sell the leasehold rights for the period from 1-10-2002 to 31-3-2004 (18 months) in favour of the 3rd respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,89,18,116/-, and orders to that effect were passed in G.O.Rt. No. 1095, Transport. Roads and Buildings Department, dated 27-9-2002. The petitioner challenges the same.2. It is the case o...
Gadu Appalanaidu and ors. Vs. Surala China Bangaraiah (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD215
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.8.1989 in A.S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1984 in O.S.No. 32 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhimunipatnam. Defendants 2 to 8 are the appellants. The sole respondent-plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal. Respondents 2 and 3 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole respondent-plaintiff.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this second appeal are as follows: Defendant No. 1 is the father of defendants 2 to 6. Defendant No. 7 is the wife and defendant No. 8 is the daughter of the first defendant. On 6.6.1982 the first defendant sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff underEx.A-1, registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of the first defendant and after executio...
Kurra Lingaiah and ors. Vs. Oyara Ganu (Died) His L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALT583
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 1 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, filed this revision petition against the order dated 14-12-2000 in I.A.No. 18 of 1994 dismissing the petition filed by them under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 521 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31-7-1992.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title over and for possession of the plaint schedule property. Later he died. His legal representatives, namely, the present respondents in this revision petition came on record as plaintiffs in the suit. The revision petitioners - defendants contested the suit. Plaintiffs adduced evidence on their behalf. After closure of their evidence, the revision petitioners changed their counsel and subsequently, as clear from the impugned order, took number of adjournments for adducing evidence on their behalf. Ultimately they ...
Vasant Rao Vs. E. Raj Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD726; 2003(2)ALT13
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2002 in E.P.No. 44/2002 in O.S.No. 25/2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. 2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder who obtained a decree dated 1.7.2002in O.S.No. 25/2000 declaring that he is the owner of eastern part of the building bearing No. 1/2/13-5 situated at Bokkalaguda, Shantinagar, Adilabad and for delivery of vacant possession of the same by evicting the defendant and also for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of suit.3. He filed E.P.No.44/2002 on 22.10.2002 under Order 21 Rules 11 and 15 of Civil Procedure Code for eviction of the Judgment-debtor from the suit schedule premises and for delivery of vacant possession. In the said execution petition the Court below directed notice to the Judgment debtor and posted the matter to 5.12.2002. The said order of the learned Judge dated 31.10.2002 which is assaile...
K. Dakshina Murthy Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD557
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.8.1997 in O.A. No.277 of 1997. O.A. No.277 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner herein praying for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 12,524/- towards gratuity with interest on delayed payment of gratuity amount at the rate of 12% from 1.12.1994 till payment. The case put forth by the petitioner in the Original Application be noticed briefly as under:2. The petitioner, while working as Office Superintendent Grade-II on a pay of Rs. 2050/- in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660, was promoted to Office Superintendent Grade-1 with effect from 5.12.1994 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 (RSEP) on pay of Rs. 2120/- from 31.10.1994 till he retired from service in terms of the proceedings of the second respondent. According to the applicant, the entire gratuity amount payable to him in terms of the service conditions was not paid to him within the stipulated time. The p...
Paladugula Vijayalakshmi Vs. Nomula Ramanadham and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)45; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)98; II(2003)DMC131
ORDERC.H.S.R.K. Prasad, J.1. This is a classic case where the parents have maintenance against their daughter by presenting M.C. 5 of 1998 before the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Warangal, by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which leads to granting of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. each against the parents from the date of presentation of the petition. The petitioner having aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate preferred a revision before the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.R.P. No. 53/2001 and the Revisional Court confirmed the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by presenting this criminal petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly assails the order of the learned Magistrate about granting of maintenance and its quantum which has been confirmed by the Revisional Court. It is also contended by him that the respondents 1 and 2 are having ancestral property...
Rajath Kanthidhara Vs. Asst. Engineer (Settlement), South Eastern Rail ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT271
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Petitioner claims to be a licensee of the South Eastern Railways under which he was allotted vacant plot Nos. 4 and 6 in the Railway New Colony Junction, Visakhapatnam. The licence was initially granted in favour of the petitioner's father for a period of three years on 17-3-1983 and thereafter it was continued on an oral understanding with the officers of the South Eastern Railway during the lifetime of his father and thereafter the petitioner. Alleging that the respondents are seeking to evict him for non-payment of arrears consequent on an abnormal increase in licence fee to Rs.6,014/- per annum from the earlier licence fee of Rs.1,600/- per annum and without any prior notice or enquiry, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate relief which includes a direction to the respondents to renew his licence on a mutually agreed licence fee.2. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondents either as pleaded, urged or demonstrated, is not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »