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.
Munganda Rama Rao Vs. State of A.P. Rep., by Its Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)24; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)177
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. In this revision, the petitioner assails the judgments of the courts below wherein he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Pisangi Nagamani (P.W.1) is living separately from her husband and is doing prawns business. On 31-8-1996 in the morning, she purchased prawns at Yanam and sold the same at Neelapalli village. The petitioner, who is a resident of Neelapalli village, purchased prawns and owed an amount of Rs.2/- to P.W.1 and when she went to collect the dues from the petitioner, the petitioner asked her to sit on the pial and went inside the house. After a little while, the petitioner suddenly caught hold of her hands, dragged her into the house stating that he would give her the money and bolted...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. Syed Khaja and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ717AP
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Industrial Court by the impugned award granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service while denying 50% of back wages. The learned single Judge did not find any substantive ground to upset the factual findings recorded by the Industrial Court and discretion exercised by it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ Appeal by the Management of the APSRTC.2. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would contend that there was delay on the part of the delinquent workman in instituting the industrial dispute. Elaborating the contention, the learned Standing Counsel would point out that the workman was removed from service in July, 1991, whereas he instituted the industrial dispute in the Labour Court in the month of April, 1993 and therefore, the Management of the APSRTC should not have been saddled with the liability of 50% back wages dur...
J. Sai Lakshmi Vs. District Panchayat Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT593
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1.This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the official respondents in not responding to the representations of the petitioner as illegal and consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations forthwith.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner contested for the office of Sarpanch, Kolamuru Gram Panchayat in East Godavari district in the elections held on 4-12-2001 in which 4th respondent was declared elected, that then she made an oral representation to respondents 1 to 3 for recounting of the votes, that as no action was taken by respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner made written representations on 14-2-2001 (sic. 2002) and 16-2-2001 (sic. 2002) to respondents 1 and 2 and also the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry requesting to inform as to the actual number of votes polled, the number of votes each candidate got and the number of invalid votes and that so far no action has been taken by...
J. Shiva Shankar Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT295; 2002CriLJ3168
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. By the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up for hearing on merit and disposed of by this judgment.2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Sub inspector of Police, Navipet, Nizamabad District in registering the Crime in F.I.R.No. 126 of 2001 on the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent P. Mohan dated 21-11-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for a consequential direction to set aside the F.I.R.3. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 24-12-2001 and an interim order was also granted on the same day. Later, by order dated 125th February, 2002, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vacated the interim order. The said order reads thus:'The third respondent along with some others filed a complaint before respondents 1 and 2 under Sections. 3(1)(x) of...
T.P.M. Chowdeswara Rao Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Orvakal Mandal, Kur ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD53
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The land admeasuring Ac.4-82 cents comprised in Survey No. 441/ B/1 of Kalwa village, Orwakal Mandal, Kurnool District was assigned to one Pasula Hussain Saheb by proceedings dated 14-3-1966 issued by the then Tahsildar. The petitioner herein purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 18-4-1966. One Pasula Meeralal Saheb who is the son of late Hussain Saheb (the original assignee) filed an application before the 1st respondent under Section (1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 requesting to restore the possession of the said land to him. The 1st respondent conducted enquiry any by an order dated 19-5-1999 declared the sale in favour of the petitioner as void and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to resume the land from the petitioner and to handover the same to Meeralal Saheb. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the2nd respondent herein who by proceedings...
Calvery Baptist Church, Visakhapatnam Vs. Vivekananda
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD157; 2002(4)ALT164
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.17 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule building by directing him to deliver vacant possession of the building and subsequent damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1,6007/-per month.2. The plaintiff averred through his plaint that the defendant made a proposal to establish a printing press in the suit building and the plaintiff agreed for the same. Accordingly the plaintiff executed an agreement of lease on 2-9-1985 mutually agreeing that the defendant should pay Rs.1,000/- p.m., towards house rent and Rs.1,000/- towards amenities. It was further agreed that the plaintiff should let out the building to the defendant for a period of 5 years with a liberty to either of the parties to terminate the tenancy by giving six months notice to the opposite ...
Hamza BIn Omer @ Zafar Vs. Commissioner, City Police, Hyderabad and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD275; 2002(4)ALT572
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri B.V. Bakshi and Sri Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners in WP Nos. 9107 and 9374 of 2000 and Sri Srimannarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.2. In both these writ petitions, inasmuch as substantially the same question is involved except slight variations; both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.3. The facts in brief are as follows:-WP No. 9107 of 2000 is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear seizing Licence No. 128/Home/92 to hold the licence and revolver owned and possessed by the petitioner without following the procedure and also questioning the impugned proceedings dated 15-5-2000 issued by the first respondent.4. It is stated that the writ petitioner is a holder of valid Licence No. 128/Home/ 92 to possess a revolver and it is stated that he always carries weapon with him and this fact is within the knowledge of everyone and i...
V. Ramachander Goud Vs. Controller of Examinations, Osmania University ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD286; 2002(3)ALT657
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner is a student a Pendekanti Law College, Himayatnagar Hyderabad, studying 2nd Year - Five Year LLB course. While writing the examination in the Economics subject on 11-10-2001, the sitting squad took away the petitioner's answer book, writing pad and seized them and also prevented him from completing the answers in Economics examination and did not allow him to writ the exam in the subject 'History of Courts'. It was alleged that some words were written on the writing pad and thus the petitioner had committed an objectable act. The seized items were examined by the Malpractices Committee and thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 12-12-2001 was issued and serviced on 21-12-2001 and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 24-12-2001. The petitioner also filed a detailed representation dated 29-12-2001 before the committee pleading innocence and that the answer-book and writing pad were not verified. While so, the first respondent passed orde...
B.R. Koteswara Rao Vs. C. Rameswari Bai @ Devi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD337; 2002(6)ALT1
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In this appeal the 1st defendant in OS No.7 of 1983 and OS No.657 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District challenges the decree and judgment therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit OS No.7 of 1983. The 2nd respondent herein appears to be a pro-forma party.2. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property comprising of Ac. 10-36 gts in S.No.101 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal taluk R.R. District having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 26-10-1965 from Mrs. B. Padmavathi Bai. The said property was being looked after by her husband Sri G. V. Reddy, who expired on 8-8-1981. When she found that the 1st defendant was in occupation of the land, she contacted him through her relative Mr. Pratap Reddy asking him to vacate the same. The defendantinsisted on payment of about Rs. 40,000/-towards expendit...
K. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. Director, Mines and Geology, Hyd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD612
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents comprised in Sy.No. 80/1 of Chimakurthy village, Prakasam District. He filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents viz., the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others in proceeding to grant prospecting licence to the 3rd respondent in respect of the land comprised in Sy.No. 584/1 is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 ('the Act' for brevity) and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules ('the Rules' for brevity). 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 12-1-1993 and that by an unregistered lease agreement dated 11-12-1993, he leased out the property to M/s. Viva Granites, a firm represented by its partner for being used as a dump yard/ground. Be it noted that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »