Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Karur Vysya Bank Vs. Royal World Exims and Agencies and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas632(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated September 27, 2000 made in W. P. No. 31052 of 1998 (Royal World Exima and Agencies v. Reserve Bank of India), That writ petition was filed by M/s Royal World Exims and Agencies, the first respondent herein seeking the following relief :'Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of respondent No. 2 dated May 23, 1998, in directing respondent No. 3 to pay the amounts of Rs. 13,07,135 on the petitioner furnishing one surety whose worth is twice the amounts of the draft as arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondent-authorities to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 13,07,135 with interest from December 18, 1996, at 8 per cent. per annum.'2. The learned j...
Goka Bujjamma Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT549
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for declaration that the proceedings dated 10-1-2002 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam in suspending the licence of the appellant's wine shop and as confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 8-2-2002 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent for restoration of the licence of the appellant. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by observing as follows:'Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without going into merits of the case and since the licence of the petitioner's shop is suspended pending enquiry, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents-authorities to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.'Aggrieved by the said decision the present appeal has bee...
Krishna Bhoopal Vs. Sanam Jhansi Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)817; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)33; [2003]43SCL610(AP)
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This petition is filed to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 494 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the 111 Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmandry, registered on a private complaint filed under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act') by the 1st respondent in connection with dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner resigned as the director of the Leafin India Ltd. (the company) on whose behalf the cheque in question was issued, and since the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that he ceased to be the director of the company from 6-3-1999, and since the offence of dishonour of cheque was not completed by 6-3-1999 the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed, more so because the company is not made an accused to the proceedings. It is his contention that as per Section 141 of the Act, the directors of a company cannot...
K. Balanagi Reddy Vs. Apsrtc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT422
ORDERP.S. Naryana, J.1. The writ petitioner who was removed as Conductor by A.P. State Road Transport Coorporation, being unsuccessful in Appeal and also Review, had preferred the present writ petition questioning the order of removal. The details relating to the order of removal, appeal preferred and the rejection thereof and the review made as against the said order and the rejection thereof also had been narrated in detail.2. It is also stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in violation of principles of natural justice and however it is stated that even if the proved charges are taken into consideration the order of removal is highly disproportionate. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit it is specifically stated how the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet personally on 1-6-1998, for which he failed to submit any explanation and in such circumstances, the case was entrusted to the Enquiry Officer to submit a detailed report after conducting D...
The Agricultural Market Committee, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD759; 2002(4)ALT210
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the judgment and decree dated 2.7.1998 in SC.No.74 of 1993 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada by the defendant in the above suit.The respondent-plaintiff was served with notice in this CRP. However, he did not choose to appear before this Court and contest this revision petition.2. Necessary and relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:The revision petitioner-defendant is an Agricultural Market Committee, Gudivada. The respondent-plaintiff is a Trader in black-grams etc. at Gudivada. He had obtained a licence from the revision petitioner. For the assessment year 1990-91, the revision petitioner passed an assessment order regarding the market fee payable by the respondent. The respondent paid a total sum of Rs.51,872/- as market fee to the revision petitioner. The respondent claimed certain exemptions. The revision petitioner granted some partial exemptions and refuse...
St. Mary's Educational Society, rep. By Its Secretary Mrs. Y. Mary and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD363; 2002(4)ALT221
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.610 of 1997 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, filed this revision petition questioning the order dated 25th September, 2001, relating to admission of certain documents as evidence during the course of trial. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. For better and proper appreciation of the dispute to be resolved in this revision petition, necessary facts are as follows: Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of plaint schedule property. As per the averments in the plaint, defendants took plaint schedule property on rent from the plaintiffs as per the terms of the lease deed-cum-general agreement dated 11.8.1986 and later lease deed dated 2.10.1987 for the purpose of running a Junior College under the name and style of St. Mary's Junior College run by defendant No.1 - Society. Plaintiffs agreed to permit defendants 1 and 2 to carry out additional construction of rooms and halls at their o...
Akinipalli Shankaraiah Vs. Akinipalli Lingaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD94; 2002(3)ALT308
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29th September 1999 passed in I.A.No.228 of 1999 in O.S.No.13 of 1998, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, the petitioner therein preferred this revision. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above mentioned suit. The said suit was laid for recovery of possession of suit schedule property from the respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, and also for mesne profits. In the said suit, the respondent set up a defence that he, in fact, purchased the suitschedule property though the title deed, was obtained in favour of the petitioner and therefore disputed the right of the petitioner to claim the relief such as the one sought by the petitioner in the suit. In substance, the respondent set up a plea of 'benami'. 3. In the background of the above mentioned defence, the petitioner herein filed the above said I.A., under Order XVI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 4(2) of the...
C. Swarnlatha Vs. High Court of A.P., Hyd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD224; 2002(3)ALT271
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1.The petitioner who is a Section Officer working in this High Court filed this writ petition for the following relief:To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification dated29.1.2002 to the extent of prescribing the maximum age limit as 48 years for recruitment by transfer as illegal, arbitrary and capricious and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examination for the post of Junior Civil Judge pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.2. The High Court has prescribed upper age limit of 32 years for direct recruitment and 48 years for recruitment by transfer as on 1.7.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that even though she got one more promotion as a section officer on 1.11.2000 and though she completed the period of probation of one year, till date...
Gajula Hanumanthappa Vs. Vadda Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD179; 2002(3)ALT259; 2002(50)BLJR2547
G. Yethirajulu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in OS No. 79 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same with future mesne profits and costs.3. The plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the eastern half of the plaint schedule property measuring an extent of Ac.13.8 cents situated in S.No. 250/1B of Kambadur Village which was purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 12-1-1959 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. The 1st defendant purchased the western half of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of Ac.13.8 cents by a registered sale deed dated 29-1-1959 for a valid consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. From the date of purchase the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant were in possession and enjoyment of ...
Gunamma Vs. Chandramma (Sole Plaintiff) Died Per Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD314; 2002(4)ALT629
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16-7-2001 in IA No. 696 of 2000 in OS No. 111 of. 1994 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.2. One Chandramma instituted OS No. 111 of 1994 against the revision petitioner and 5th respondent as defendants seeking partition of her share in the plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the said Chandramma died. Respondents 1 ' to 4 claiming to be the children and husband of the said Chandramma have filed IA No. 696 of 2000 to bring themselves on record as the legal representatives of the said Chandramma. The revision petitioner and the 5th respondent opposed the application contending that the 4th respondent is not the husband and respondents 1 to 3 are not the children of Chandramma. The learned Judge holding that the first petitioner and 5th respondent who admitted that 4th petitioner is the husband of Chandramma cannot now be heard to say that he is not the husband...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »