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.
B.G. Andalu Vs. G.S.J. Misra and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD737
G. Rohini, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 15-2-1991 in OP No. 43 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala under which the request of theappellant for permission to sue as an indigent person has been refused.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant herein filed OP No. 43 of 1988 under Order 33, Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. She stated in the application filed before the Court below that her husband was working in the Transport Corporation of India and that on 25-7-1987 the 2nd respondent went to the house of the appellant and took away all the valuable movables from the house high-handedly stating that the appellant's husband and five other who were deputed to Hyderabad on offices work and did not return and cheated the Company of large sums. In view of the threats received from the respondents the appellant was compelled to give a police report which was registered as Crim...
Aitha Gopalakrishna Vs. District Collector, Visakhapatnam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD649; 2002(6)ALT623
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The writ petition is filed for a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in diverting the Vedulla Vagu Water Stream of Batajangalapalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by constructing a check-dam without following the procedure under the A.P. Irrigation (Construction and Maintenance of Water Courses) Act, 1965, as without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents not to proceed with the construction of the same and pass other suitable orders.2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:The petitioner is an ayacutdar of Kamaraju Cheruvu situate at Btajangalapalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, owning an extent of Acs.5.00 in Survey No. 189 in the said village. The ayacut under Kamaraju Cheruvu is about Acs.20.00 and the water to the said tank comes from Vedulla Vagu/Gadda which is situate at a higher level and is the only sour...
Maineni Prabhakara Rao and ors. Vs. Collector, Guntur (Panchayat-wing) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD370; 2002(3)ALT114
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Petitioners are the elected Members of Kolluru Gram Panchayat, Guntur, District. They are questioning the validity of the notification issued by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Guntur in Roc. No. 14062/92-G8, dated 15-10-1994, deleting a part of area from Kolluru Gram Panchayat and forming a separate Gram Panchayat for Yadavapalem village (named as 'Gopalapuram').2. The Collector, Guntur District issued a show-cause notice dated 9-10-1994 to show-cause why the hamlet 'Yadavapalem', comprising Survey Nos.389 to 393 and 613 to 668 should not be excluded from the Revenue village of 'Kolluru' and formed into a separate Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioners, as per Section 3(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Rules framed in G.O. Ms.No. 364, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 10-7-1969 ( which rules are still in force since no rules are framed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994), any hamlet of a Revenue vil...
New Deccan Hall and ors. Vs. Delight Electrical Works and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT518; (2004)189CTR(AP)42; [2003]260ITR337(AP)
Meena Kumari, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated November 21, 2001 passed in I. A. No. 1138 of 2001, in R. C. No. 108 of 1999 by the Fourth Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.2. The brief facts of the case as stated in I.A. No. 1138 of 2001 are that the petitioners herein filed a petition to summon the profit and loss account for the year ending March 31, 1996, the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1996, and March 31, 1998, of the first respondent firm and also the documents showing the computation of total income and acknowledgment of Sri Syed Kaleemuddin, partner, of Modern New Enterprises, for the assessment year commencing on April 1, 1995.3. The petitioners herein submit that they filed an application for certified copies of the above mentioned documents before the Commissioner of Income-tax and the said Commissioner declined to furnish the same on October 29, 2001, on the ground that it is not in...
Devireddy Mohan Rao Vs. Eluri Venkateswarlu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT715
ORDERDubagunta Subrahamnyam, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 31,091/- along with interest and costs. According to the averments in the plaint, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,000/- on 01-02-1994 from the plaintiff to meet his personal necessities and after receiving the said amount, the defendant executed a letter on the same day i.e., 01-02-1994 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same within a period of 6 months along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum by way of collateral security. The other averments in the plaint are not necessary for the disposal of this revision petition.2. The defendant filed a written statement opposing the suit inter alia, pleading that the promissory note on the basis of which the plaintiff is claming the suit amount is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. It was further pleaded that the suit promissory note was not properl...
Sunita Industries Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT377; [2003]131STC408(AP)
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 498, Industries and Commerce (I.A.) Department, dated October 16, 1989 to encourage setting up of new industries in certain backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh by offering certain special incentives to those who come forward for setting up industries in backward areas, particularly, in agency areas.2. The petitioner, a resident of Adilabad town was induced to establish a small-scale industry on the basis of certain incentives offered by the State Government pursuant to the G.O. with the hope that the subsidy of 20 per cent capital investment not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs would be extended to her apart from granting of five years sales tax holiday subject to the maximum ceiling of Rs. 35 lakhs of sales tax during the entire holiday period of five years.3. According to the petitioner, the State Level Committee is competent to grant final eligibility certificate if the capital investment is more than Rs. 7.5...
Vemula Rajamouli and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD424; 2002(2)ALT153
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ petition was filed by two petitioners who are residents of Thelukunta village of Julapalli Mandal and Gangaram village of Kalva Srirampur Mandal of Karimnagar District respectively for a declaration that G.O. Ms. No. 176, Law CLA and J (Courts-C) Department dated 15-11-2001 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh converting the existing Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Manthani (Mobile Court) as regular Junior Civil Judge's Court and shifting the same from Manthani to Godavarikhani as arbitrary and illegal.2. According to the petitioners, G.O. Ms. No.406 Home (Courts-A) Department dated 27-6-1990 was issued for establishing Mobile Courts in some of the districts including the place at Manthani, Karimnagar District in order to facilitate the poorersections of people inhabiting in remote and interior areas of the districts who have been implicated in bailable offences to have an immediate access to the Courts. The said GO was a laudable...
D. Mallesham Vs. the Revenue Divisonal Officer,vikarabad Division, Ran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD644; 2002(2)ALT330
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition impugns the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District whereunder he was kept under suspension pending a detailed enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed the impugned order in purported exercise of the power under Rule 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Village Administrative Officers Services Rules (for short 'the Rules').2. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A No. 6338 of 2001 challenging the said order. A Full Bench of the Tribunal by its order dated 11.12.2001 opined that the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to pass an order of suspension pending enquiry against the Village Administrative Officer. The Tribunal took the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer has the power to place a Village Administrative Officer under suspension pending enquiry into the charges under Rule 47 of the Rules. The ...
D. Nagarathnamma and ors. Vs. Pulicherla Krishna Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD682
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Puttur of Chittoor District against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupathi in A.S.No.77 of 1978 preferred by the defendants challenging its validity and legality. The facts leading to the preferring of the second appeal by the plaintiffs are briefly as follows:The defendant for himself and as Manager of the joint family borrowed a sum of Rs.3,250/- and executed a suit promissory note dated 10-10-1974 in favour of the 1st plaintiff promising to repay the same on demand with interest @ 6% per annum. Despite the repeated demands the defendant failed to repay the amount. Hence he filed the suit for recovery of the amount covered by the suit promissory note with interest and costs.The defendant while admitting the execution of the suit promissory note pleaded that it is not supported by consideration. The defendant pleaded that he did ...
Collector/Agent to the Govt., Khammam District Vs. Bhadrachalam Divisi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD678
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Collector/Agent to Government, Khammam District has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 9-4-1998 passed in WP No.33 of 1998 by the learned single Judge.2. WP No.33 of the 1998 was filed by the Bhadrachalam Division Lorry Owners Association, Bridge Road, Bhadrachalam, praying for writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Collector/Agent to Government-appellant herein, who is impleaded as 1st respondent in the writ petition, in entertaining the suit OS No.49 of 1996 filed by one Sri Chennupati Ramakotaiah Lorry Transport, Vijayawada, for perpetual injunction against the writ petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.3. It appears that the 3rd respondent filed suit OS No.49 of 1996 praying for the relief of perpetual injunction against the writ petitioner's association from interfering with his transport business along with an interlocutory application for temporary injunction. The said suit was entertained by the Collector/Agent to Gove...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »