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.
Jiby P. Chacko Vs. Principal, Mediciti School of Nursing, Ghanpur, Ran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD827
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner hails from Kottayam District in Kerala. She joined the three-year Nursing Course in the first respondent Nursing School, namely, Mediciti School of Nursing ('Nursing School' for brevity). Allegedly she paid a hefty fees of Rs. 53,000/- and for that purpose her parents mortgaged the only house they possessed. She joined the course on 5-8-1999 and would be completing the course by January, 2003. She passed first year course and is likely to appear for the examination of second year course in January/February, 2002. On6-9-2001 she was permitted to leave the Nursing School situated at Ghanpur to enable her to meet her relatives, who came from Kerala. On her return the Principal of the Nursing School summoned her and she was told that she is no longer eligible to continue nursing course as her character is not good. The Principal extracted a confession from the petitioner by force. On 20-9-2001 the impugned order/letter was issued to the father of the pe...
Sumitra Priya Darsini Vs. Hyderabad Telephones, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD103; 2002(3)ALT303
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who are wife and husband filed WPNos. 12106 and 12122 of 2000 respectively seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-Hyderabad Telephones in disconnecting their Telephones bearing Nos. 7564765 and 7631664 respectively, as arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.2. Since in both the writ petitions common questions of fact and law are involved, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. WP No. 12106 of 2001, is filed by the wife. She was given telephone connection by the respondent bearing Telephone No. 7564765. It was installed in her house on 30-11-1989. She received a bill dated 11-3-2000, for Rs. 1,685/-, which she paid promptly. However, the respondent, despite her strong protests, disconnected her Telephone on the ground that M/s. Instyle Consumer Leasing Private Limited (for short 'the company'), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in which the husband of the ...
Guda Anjaneyulu and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD387; 2002(4)ALT755
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. WP No. 25806 of 2001: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings vide No. 17752/R3(2)/2001, dated 29-8-2001 granting prospecting licence and the quarry licence vide proceedings No. 34354/R3/2/ 2001, dated 12-11-2001, issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by mala fide, mis-representation and fraud and contrary to the directions of this Court issued in WP No. 7303 of 1993, dated 16-2-2000.2. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is brought to my notice that having aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Government but the same has been treated as revision and the same is pending.3. At this juncture, it is contended by Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP No. 25806 of 2001 that the petitioners are claiming tittle over the property and f...
Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Hyderab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT520(AP)
ORDERDr. Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. The petitioner is the A.P. Paper Mills Limited/ Rajahmundry, represented by its Deputy Manager (Excise), who assails the order dated 10-12-2001 made by the 1st respondent in Stay Petition No. 67/2001 (V)-C.E., on various grounds.2. We have heard Sri V. Srinivas, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.V. Ramulu, Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that as against the determination of the tax liability by the 2nd respondent for the period 1997-2000 to the tune of Rs. 4 crores the matter has been carried in appeal before the 1st respondent. While so, along with the appeal, a stay petition has also been filed seeking recovery of the tax liability pending decision by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority, rejected the stay petition even without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is in this background W.P. No. 22435 of 2001 has been filed before this Court inter alia assailing ...
Ch. A.V. Prasad Vs. G. Shankar Rao, Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Techno ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT657
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent Shri G. Shankar Rao, the Registrar of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (since retired) alleging that he has deliberately disobeyed the order dated 20-11-1996 passed by this Court in W.A.Nos. 955 of 1996 and 963 of 1996 and did not implement the same. While passing the order dated 20th November, 1996, this Court issued the following direction:'The direction issued by the learned single Judge to appoint the Writ petitioner-respondent as Printing Press Operator forthwith in place of the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 955 of 1996, however, has to be modified in the light of the observations above and a direction has to issue to consider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent for such appointment or appointment in any other suitable post available with the University, as in his case the direction issued by the Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1990 has obviousl...
G.R.V. Vidya Sagar and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD353; 2002(2)ALT61
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. Thepetitioners - ten in number invoke theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioners herein with effect from the dates of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising their services and in not paying them the wages on par with the other employees as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts as is evident from the pleadings may have to be noticed before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of any relief as such from this Court.3. All the petitioners herein are graduates. They are also having technical qualifications like typewriting both English and Telugu languages and shorthand. According to...
Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad Vs. K. Penta Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD384; 2002(2)ALD384; 2002(2)ALT553; 2002(2)ALT553; [2002(94)FLR234]
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.5201 of 1993 dated 4th December, 1996 directing the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex to absorb the respondents herein in regular service as and when vacancies arise in future keeping in view the principle governing Section 25-F and the allied subsequent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the above direction, the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex filed the present writ appeal.3. We have perused the pleadings and also the judgment under appeal. In our considered opinion, with regard to the absorption/appointment of contract labour in regular posts, they have to be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules having regard to the age, qualifications and experience, subject to availability of...
Secretary to Government and anr. Vs. K.C. Venkateswarlu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD623; 2002(2)ALT317
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. TheSecretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the Director of Intermediate Education aggrieved by the order dated 10-6-1997, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition, being WP No. 17142 of 1993, have filed this writ appeal.2. The parties shall be referred to by their status in the writ petition.3. The petitioners, who are 19 in number filed the writ petition stating thatthey are working as Lecturers, Senior Assistants, Junior Assistants and Record Assistants in Dr. L.B. Junior College, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). That the college, which was running without receiving any financial aid from the Government, was paying its teaching and non-teaching staff, scales of pay, on par with those working in Government institutions.4. Petitioner No. 1, who is working as In-charge Principal of the College filed an affidavit in support of die writ petition stating that he joine...
Perikala Peturu Vs. Nelapati Rebbamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD823; 2002(3)ALT480
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-7-1995 in Small Cause Suit No. 126 of 1991 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit which was filed on promissory note Ex.A1 and Transfer Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff therein, dated 10-9-1981 on another pronote dated 16-10-1989 i.e., A2. While dismissing the suit the learned Subordinate Judge has observed that the plaintiff did not prove that the consideration was paid by him to late Prakasm under Exs.A1 and A6 i.e., promissory note dated 16-10-1989 (on which endorsement Ex.A2 was made). It is also held that though Expert Opinion is available on record, no reliance can be placed on it on the ground that the said opinion dated 12-4-1994 is not exhibited and the Expert who gave opinion is also not examined.2. This order is attacked by the learned Counsel for the petitioner contending that the learned Judge o...
K. Pushpavathi and anr. Vs. K. Bharat Bhushanam Naidu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1503; 2002(3)ALD36
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this LPA would be whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') is having jurisdiction to entertain a claim by the injuired person, when the vehicle in which he was travelling met with an accident at an un-manned railway crossing by hitting the passing train.2. The facts are not in dispute. The tractor in which the son of the claimants was travelling, involved in the accident on 30-11-1986 at an un-manned railway crossing at Kongaravaripalle, by hitting the passing rail engine and the victim died on the spot. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 92-A of the old Act i.e., under no fault liability, claiming an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. But the Tribunal as well as this Court, dismissed the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction, by relying on a judgment of this Court reported...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »