Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Palika Satyavathi Vs. Singireddy Ramana Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALT400
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this appeal the defendant challenges the decree and judgment of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in O.S. No. 152 of 1982.2. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15-11-1977 or in the alternative for refund of an amount of Rs. 11,000/- paid towards part of sale consideration together with damages of Rs. 9,000/-. The respondent pleaded that the appellant approached him offering to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs. 13,500/-and an agreement of sale dated 15-7-1978 was executed, and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid towards advance on the same day. According to the terms of the agreement, the balance consideration was to be paid and sale deed was to be executed on or before 15-2-1978. However the appellant refused to execute the sale deed but went on receiving the amounts of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 500/- etc., upto June 1979. The last payment was made on 15-6-1979 ...
Ahmed Abdul Saleem and ors. Vs. Ahmed Abdul Sameer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002AIHC2310; 2002(4)ALT470
ORDER1. These two revision petitions are filed by some of the defendants in O.S.No.13 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Armoor. The parties as they are arrayed in the trial court suit will be referred as such in this order.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his undivided 7/242nd share in the suit property. In para 5 of the plaint he mentioned the distinctive shares of defendants 1 to 19 as well as his share. Defendants 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 jointly filed a written statement in the suit. They admitted the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the court may be pleased to decree the plaintiff's suit. The above defendants are the revision petitioners in these two revision petitions. After the written statements are filed by the defendants, the trial court settled the issues for trial. Thereafter the suit was posted for trial to 21.7.2000. Defendant No.14 filed a petition in I.A.No.104 of 2000 requesting the court to advance the suit from 21.7...
Sarapu Chinna Potharaju Dora and anr. Vs. the District Collector, East ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD218; 2002(1)ALT699
1. The decision of the respondents proposing to acquire the lands in Surampalem, Donelapalli, Kothada and Tekuluveedhi villages of Gangavaram Mandal in East Godavari District (Agency Area) for construction of Surampalem Reservoir Project is assailed in this writ petition.2. The first petitioner herein is a tribal and he is directly affected by the proposed acquisition of the land by the respondents.3. The second petitioner is a voluntary organisation representing the cause of the tribals. The proposal is challenged on various grounds.4. The petitioners contend that the proposed acquisition is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'PR Act') as made applicable to the scheduled areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the further case of the petitioners that the proposed acquisition is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time and the policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh reflecte...
K.V. Subrahmanayam and ors. Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD357
1. The parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 25657 of 2001.2. Both the writ petitions are concerned with the motion of No-Confidence against the Vice-Chairman of Proddatur Municipal Council, who is the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 25657 of 2001 and the only petitioner in W.P. No. 27051 of 2001. W.P. No. 25657 of 2001 is filed challenging the notice dated 3-12-2001, issued by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, and whereas W.P. No. 27051 of 2001, is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the method and manner in which the meeting was conducted by the Joint Collector on 22-12-2001.Since the submissions in the vacate stay application and the main writ petitions are substantially the same, and the questions that arise for adjudication are also common, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the writ petitions itself were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Elections to Municipal Council, Proddatur, were held in F...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Madanlal, Ips and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD512; 2002(1)ALT767
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed this writ petition to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad made in OA No. 1568 of 1999 dated 19-10-2000. The 1st respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police filed the said Original Application to quash or set aside the proceedings in G.O. Rt. No. 5810, dated 6-11-1997 holding that the delay in finalising the enquiry into the charges as arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 2. The Tribunal while remitting the case back to the authorities for reconsideration, set aside the decision of the respondents therein treating him as unfit for promotion, directed them to peruse those confidential reports of the applicant afresh which were placed before the Screening Committee which met on 28-6-1999 and make necessary corrections as warranted keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jalnigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, : [1996]1SCR1118 . After the above exercise is done, a review S...
Ducinia Rodrigues and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD664
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal preferred by the declarants is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-2-1999 made in WP No. 13338 of 1998 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant-declarants in the above writ petition sought for a direction to call for the records from the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein in CC No. F1/842/76 along with F2/863/96 and to quash the memo No. F2/862 and 863/26/96, dated 28-3-1998 and also for a consequential direction to give clearance to the petitioners in respect of the retainable area in plot Nos. 58 and 59 in Sy.Nos. 357/1 and 357/3 of Malkarjigiri village. The writ petitioners also sought fora direction to receive and register the sale deeds presented for registration in respect of the said plots.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be noted briefly as under: A retainable area of 1000 sq.mts. is allowed by the third responde...
State of A.P. and ors. Vs. J. Dilip Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD675
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred by the State Government and its authorities assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-6-2000 made in WP No. 2104 of 1999. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to send the proposals for permission for correction of survey error in respect of Sy.No. 696 of Janwada village and to accord permission as per the orders of the District Revenue Officer dated 11-9-1998 and to correct the survey error and other required corrections in the revenue records.2. Though the prayer was couched in the above terms, what actually the writ petitioners have sought is the enforcement of the order made by the District Revenue Officer dated 11-9-1998 bearing No. G8/3225/94. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 14-6-2000 with the following direction-'Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of di...
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of A.P., Hyd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD768; 2002(2)ALT705
S.R. Nayak, J .1. This writ appeal is preferred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities assailing the validity and legality of the order of the learned single Judge dated 13-3-1987 made in Writ Petition No.8698 of 1985. The 1st respondent herein, namely, P. Srinivas Rao claiming to be a devotee of Narsingji Temple and Jeera Mutt situated in Jeera, Secunderabad belonging to Kimbaraka Sampradaya, a Vaishnavayet Institution, which is stated to have been founded more than two hundred years ago, filed the above writ petition praying for a direction to the State Government and its authorities to settle 'payment of compensation to the Jeera Mutt in accordance with the judgment and decree passed in AS No,20 of 1967, dated 12-4-1972.'2. The background facts of the case may be summarised briefly as under: The Jeera Mutt was the owner of an extent of Ac. 15-05 guntas of land situated in and around the said Mutt. The land had been leased to one Vaman Naik. The said extent of land w...
Ramalingam and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD330; 2002(3)ALT462
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners are weavers by profession and in view of the rapid industrialisation, they were facing certain problems and formed a registered society viz., Sri Siddeswara Swami Silk Weavers Co-operative-cum-sales Society Limited and approached the 4th respondent bank for loan and the 4th respondent bank extended the loan of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioners for purchase of instruments.2. Due to subsequent events they are not in a position to repay the dues andsought for relief under Agricultural and Debt Relief Scheme and the bank having considered their request granted the relief indicated in the scheme. However, the petitioners herein contend that they are entitled to total waiver of loan amount i.e., Rs. 10,000/-.3. The first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 665 dated 17-10-1990 providing 50% of the cost of the debt relief would be borne by the Government of India and the Government of India offered to provide loan to the State Government to meet the balance...
Nutech Agro Ltd. Vs. Ch. Mohan Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)918; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)570; [2002]111CompCas75(AP)
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 30 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.2. The first respondent filed the above S.T.C. under Section 163(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), alleging that he is a shareholder, holding 46,600 shares in the first petitioner-company and as his request for a copy of the list of registered shareholders of the first petitioner as on 30-4-1995 to 1996, was not complied with, he made a request through registered notice on 30-1-1999, enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 200 to cover the expenses to be incurred for providing xerox copies of the documents required and postal charges, undertaking to pay additional charges, if any required, and that that notice was returned unserved, raising a presumption that the petitioners are deliberately avoiding to furnish the required information, and, hence, the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 163(5).3....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »