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.
B. Lakshmi Bai and ors. Vs. Apsrtc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT129
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration of the proceedings of the Second Respondent in No. E2/255 (18)/2002-RM 'A' Kurnool Regoin dated 14-12-2002 insofar as recategorizing the petitioners from Attenders to Shramiks as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that the second respondent by his office order dated 14-11-2002 has recategorized the posts of Sweepers/Attenders as Shramiks and thereby there was change in the conditions of Service even though there is no change in the pay scales. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not file any material to show that service conditions have been changed.3. It is to be seen that the second respondent pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 14-11-2002 have issued the proceedings in office order No. E2/255 (18)/ 2002-RM 'Q' recategorising the posts of Attenders/Sweepers as Sramiks and it was also stated that th...
Janjirala Venkulu and ors. Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)363
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners and two others were tried for the offences under Sections 143 and 353 of IPC in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda. The trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for four months. They preferred Crl.A.No.24/99 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The lower appellate Court acquitted A4 and A5 and sustained the conviction against the petitioners herein. The sentence was, however, reduced from four months to two months. Hence, the present Crl.R.C.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the son of the 1st petitioner by name Janjirla Saidulu was studying in the Zilla Parishad High School, Pajjur, where P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 were working as teachers and PW.3 was working as Head Master. It is alleged that on 13-9-1996, PW.3 has beaten P.Ws.8, 10 and 11 and Mr. Saidulu, who are students, on the ground that they were not able to read the lesson proper...
Atika Venkataramana and ors. Vs. Pokala Jayalakshmi @ Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT757
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-10-1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, wherein the court below dismissed I.A. No. 17 of 1987 in O.S. No. 13 of 1986, a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.2. The respondents herein filed the above suit. In the said suit, as the appellants herein were absent, they were set ex parte on 16-4-1986. Subsequently on 3-7-1986, an ex parte decree was passed as prayed for in favour of the respondents herein. Against the said ex parte decree, the appellants have chosen to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and as there was delay of 23 days in filing the said application, they also filed I.A. No. 1090 of 1986 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court below accepted the reasons for the delay and accordingly allowed I.A. No. 1090 of 1986 by its order dated 19-1-1987 on imposing terms. Thereafter, the present petition i.e., (I.A. No. 17 of 1987) which was filed under Order IX ...
Muddu Krishna Rangaiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD741; 2003(1)ALT272; 2003(1)ARBLR642(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) filed by the applicant praying to appoint sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute/claims raised by the petitioner. Be it noted that the applicant was awarded work of construction of Type V Quarters, one Unit for Officers at Guntakal. He entered into agreement No. 33/Co-ord/GTL/97, dated 27.3.1997. The value of the work is Rs. 4,19,641/- which has to be completed within a period of six months. He completed the work by 31.10.1997. A final bill was prepared by the respondents which he alleges to be defective. He therefore signed the final bill allegedly under protest and claims that the same is not settled. Therefore, by letter dated 31.12.2001 he demanded the respondents to pay the alleged dues within fifteen days, or else to refer the dispute/claims to the arbitrator under Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which were i...
N. Laxman Dev Vs. Nagarjuna Constructions Engineer and Builders and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD208; 2003(1)ALT730
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Both the revisions are filed challenging the common order and decree dated 25.09.2002 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in C.M.A. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2002. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court confirmed the common order and decree dated 1.7.2002 passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North in I.A.No. 437/ 2002 in O.S. No. 159/2002 and in I.A.No. 438/2002 in O.S. No. 160/2002 in rejecting to grant the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, and thereby dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of dismissal passed by the Courts below in the interlocutory applications, the plaintiffs in the suit filed these revision petitions.2. Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions is similar and the respondents are common and also since the suit schedule property involved in both the revisions is situated in the same survey number, and also as the Court below...
Padala Dharma Rao Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD685
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refrain from acquiring the petitioner's land in S. Nos. 46/2 and 46/3 of Tsundur Village and Mandal, Guntur District by declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'The Act') proposing to acquire the petitioner's land of Ac. 0.60 cents in S.No.46/ 2 and Ac. 0.29 cents in S.No.46/3 of Tsundur Village and Mandal, Guntur District, published in Guntur District Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 1.2.1992 as illegal, null and void.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land measuring Ac. 1.20 cents in S. Nos. 46/2 and 46/3 to a total extent of being Ac. 1.10 cents of Tsundur Village. He has been using the said land for agricultural purposes. While so, the first respondent herein issued a notification dated 1.2.1992 proposing to acquire Ac.2.00 of land in S. No. 46/1, 2 and 3 of Tsunduru Village to be used for burial...
Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs. Avula Asha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD653; 2003(6)ALT807
B.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the Order dated 11-3-2002 in O.P. No. 156of 1998 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage and also on the ground of incompatibility between the respondent-wife and himself.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has taken place on 16-6-1995 at Angalakuduru, erstwhile Tenali Taluk of Guntur District as per Hindu custom and it is an arranged marriage. We need not traverse all the allegations made by the appellant in his legal notices, Original Petition and the evidence adduced in the matter.3. The short question that falls for consideration of this Court would be whether there is any truth in the allegation of the appellant that the respondent did not cohabitate with him as the marriage has taken place...
A. Sathish Kumar Vs. Sabbineni Chinnaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD307; III(2003)BC556
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. The revision petition is filedby the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2001 in SC No.17 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. CMP11579 of 2002 is filed to permit the revision petitioner to take the additional ground in the revision petition to the effect that the Trial Court ought to have framed and decided the legal issue under Section 9 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli as to whether the plaintiff is a money lender and what is the legal effect thereof if he is proved to be a money lender and whether the suit SC 17 of 1998 is maintainable. 2. The revision petitioner is a practicing advocate. The respondent filed the suit stating that on 27-3-1995, the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note Ex.A1 and did not discharge the debt in spite of demands. The defendant filed written statement denying execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A1. He pleade...
inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt. of A.P. and ors. V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT697
ORDER1. Rule Nisi.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main writ petition was heard finally.3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent/ applicant for transfer to any of the places of his choice as mentioned by him at the time of counselling held on 11-6-2002 and to issue posting orders accordingly.4. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction to the petitioners herein to issue posting orders as per the choice of the respondent/applicant. It is trite that the respondent/applicant is holding a transferable post. Therefore, he is liable to be transferred from place to place and post to post in the interest of public administration. Who should work where is the prerogative of the employer and unless the exercise of power is tainted by permissible grounds such as mala fides or want of authority the Courts are very slow to ...
Ved Electrical Stores Vs. Additional Commissioner, Mch
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD721; 2003(2)ALT65
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, CJ 1. Heard Sri Akella Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt G. Jyothi Kiran, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23050 of 2002. Though a common order was passed in three writ petitions, only one appeal has been filed before us. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant-writ petitioner is pending and, therefore, the appellant can approach the Civil Court by making appropriate application and that it is not permissible for the appellant to approach this Court when the suit as regards the same subject matter is pending.3. Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') provides that a written notice has to be issued by the Corporation requiring the person who is erecting or re-erecting such building or executing such work or has erected or re-erected such building or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »