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.
G. Shravan Kumar and Etc. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)557; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)16; 2002CriLJ2997
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioners were arrested on 7-7-2000 by the Inspector of Police, East zone, Task Force at Central Bus station, Gowliguda. A case at Afzulgunj police station being Cr. No. 347 of 2000 was registered under Section 411, IPC and Section 25 of Antiques and Treasurers Act, 1970. After their arrest the petitioners moved bail application before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate contending that same offence for the same occurrence had been registered at Peddakothapally police station, Mahaboobnagar district being Cr. No. 61 of 1997 and in that case the Magistrate, Kollapur had already granted them bail therefore they could not be kept in custody for the offence for which they had already been bailed out by a competent Magistrate. In spite of this plea their bail application was rejected. They moved the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He was also informed that the accused had been bailed out by a competent Court, but he also rejected the bail applicati...
Gram Panchayat Vs. Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation and Command Area Deve ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT575
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Gram Panchayat, Pondugula, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District, is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Memo No. SI/MC/188-Spl, dated 27-3-1999 issued by 2nd respondent and consequential Divisional proceedings No. AB/A1/296-M, dated 30-3-1999 issued by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and contrary to the Rules and consequently direct the respondents to grant leasehold rights of Mango trees, numbering 320 in the foreshore of Chavitivagu tank of Pondugula village Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, as is being granted earlier in terms of A.P.P.W.D. Code Para 344, r/w. Rule 1-A and B under Appendix thereunder and pass such other suitable orders.2. Though the pleadings of the parties are lengthy, the question involved in the Writ Petition is short and simple. However, for the pur...
Rockwool (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Central Exci ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)546; 2003(156)ELT325(AP)
ORDER1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the manufacturerof Rockwool Products, falling under the heading No.6803.00, had, consequent onthe change in 1991-92 budget, came under Excise Control. On 8-8-1991 petitionerfiled a classification list classing their products under Ch.Heading No.6803.00and the same was confirmed by the Department.The notification dated 20-3-1990was withdrawn on 25-7-1991 and simultaneously Notification No.60/91-C.E. dated25-7-1991 was issued exempting the goods falling under Chapter No.68 containing25% or more by weight of Fly Ash or Phosphogypsym or both from the whole of dutyof excise. The petitioner in its classification list dated 4-9-1991 read withthe earlier letter dated 20-3-1990, claimed exemption for all the goods manufactured by it in terms of notification No.60/91-C.E. dated 25...
Y. Markandeyudu and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD362; 2002(2)ALT1
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The subject matter that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the constitutional validity of the amended proviso to Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules on various grounds in O.A.Nos.5312 of 1996 and 383 of 1996 respectively. The Tribunal by its common Judgment dated 13th August, 1997 disposed of O.A.No.6456 of 1995 and Batch, including the above Original Applications, upholding the constitutional validity of the said amended proviso to Rule 6 of the said Rules. The Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners. Hence these writ petitions.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the Tribunal has committed any error in upholding th...
Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. Vs. A.P. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD609; 2002(3)ALT593
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner, an association of manufacturers of medicines, drugs and pharmaceuticals, has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in prescribing the holding of WHO GMP (World Health Organization Good Manufacturing Practices) Certificate for the manufacturers to participate in the tenders as per Tender Notification, dated 10-10-2001 for supply of I.V. fluids and general drugs under Rate Contract 2001-03, as being arbitrary and irrational, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the members of the petitioner-Association and other licensees who manufacture medicines/drugs/ pharmaceuticals.2. While admitting the writ petition on 19-10-2001, this Court passed an interim order in WPMP No.27836 of 2001 directing the first respondent to consider the tenders of the members of the petitioner-Association without insisting that they should possess WHO GMP Certificate, pen...
Manda Visweswara Rao and ors. Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD659; 2002(3)ALT234
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. These writ appeals are filed by certain kerosene hawkers, seven in number, and directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-11-2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 7831 and 7832 of 1996. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of another learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9203 and 13134 of 1995 and 820 of 1994 dated 18-3-1996, disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondent-authorities to supply kerosene to the card holders through the petitioners (authorised Fair Price Shop Dealers) in terms of the policy decision of the Government contained in G.O. Rt. No. 479, Food and Agriculture (CS.IV) Department, dated 19-4-1983, the Circular Lr. No. B2/934/GT, dated 1-1-1987 issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and the Government Memo No. 1584/CS. II/94, Food and Civil Supplies (CS) Department, dated 26-4-1994 and also in the light of the judgment of the learned single Judge in Wri...
Sangu Lakshminarayana and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD736; 2002(3)ALT386
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The competing claims of the appellants and the contesting private respondents relate to the entitlement to seek ryotwari pattas under Section 17 of the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). According to the appellants, they are entitled to the Ryotwari Patta under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, whereas, according to the contesting private respondents, they are entitled to the ryotwari patta under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in his letter dated 8-6-1998, which was impugned in the writ petition, recorded a finding that the appellants are not eligible for the patta under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Act for the reasons stated by him in the order. The Commissioner also noted that the contesting private respondents have not laid necessary materials and evidence to grant ryotwari patta under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act and so opining, the proceeding relating to the claim of the...
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam Vs. Bharathi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD84; 2002(3)ALT272
1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in OS No. 1238 of 1985 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant in the said suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the notices issued by the 1st defendant on 14-5-1985, in June, 1985 and August, 1985 and a notice dated 18-5-1985 issued by the 1st defendant are illegal, invalid, arbitrary and untenable under law and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers and men from interfering with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the building owned by her.3. The plaintiff averred that she is the owner of the building constructed in Plot No. 14 under MS No. 76, Block No. 9 of Waltair. The 2nd defendant granted permission for construction of the said building on an application made by her. She constructed the building as per the building rules as applicable to Visakhapatnam Mu...
Radhakrishna Yadav (Died Per Lrs) and ors. Vs. G. Kalavati Bai
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD150; 2002(5)ALT750
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 22-10-1998 in RA No. 314 of 1995 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 10-4-1995 in RC No.247 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:Ranveer Singh was the owner of the petition schedule property. On 27-6-1992 he sold the said property under a registered sale deed Ex.A3 in favour of Smt. G. Kalavathi Bai. On the same day, general power of attorney holder of Ranveer Singh sold the same property to another lady by name Smt. Seshikala under a different registered sale deed. By that time the revision petitioner herein was the tenant in the petition schedule premises from a long time having taken the said premises on rent fro...
K.V. Gangaram and ors. Vs. K. Krishna Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD577a
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 2nd September, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Transfer O.P.No.186 of 1998 on his file.2. The revision petitioner filed a tenancy petition in ATC.No.4 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. At the fag end of pendency of the said O.P., the respondent in that O.P., who is a practicing advocate at Vizianagaram, filed a petition under Section 24 C.P.C., in O.P.No.186 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Judge to transfer ATC.4 of 1992 from Vizianagaram to any other court in the District.3. As per the averments in the Transfer O.P., the petitioner therein pleaded that tenancy petition was posted to 7.5.1997 to hear the arguments, the respondent therein was filing petition after petition and dragging his feet, the petitioner being an advocate feeling it highly inconvenient and delicate to appear before the court for every adjournment and pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »