Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Laymens Evargelical Fellowship Society and anr. Vs. P. Eswaramma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD601; 2002(6)ALT310
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. 2. For purpose of convenience the parties are referred as arrayed in the plaint. 3. While allowing CRP No. 1454 of i 996 by setting aside the orders of the trial Court in IA No. 1535 of 1994 dated 13-10-1995 this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within one month from the date of receipt a copy of the order since the suit is of the year 1987. Thereafter in CMP No. 21671 of 2001, the Additional Junior Civil Judge sought extension of time by one month from 20-10-2001 the day on which the time granted by this Court was going to expire, by stating that after receipt of the orders both the Counsel did not appear before the Court on 1st, 3rd and 4th of October, 2001 on the ground that the advocates are on boycott and at the instance of the parties the matter was adjourned to 8-10-2001. On that day the plaintiff examined PW1 in part and the matter was adjou...
N. Veerraju Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD512; 2002(4)ALT337; [2002(94)FLR809]
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Thepetitioner while working as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Endowments Department at Kakinada was subjected to a raid by the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 4-7-1997. Certain documents pertaining to moveable and immovable properties were seized from the residence of the petitioner. It is not necessary to notice the details of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Suffice it to notice that the Anti-Corruption Bureau found the petitioner to have acquired disproportionate assets.2. The petitioner was transferred from Kakinada to Simhachalam of Visakhapatnam District with effect from 13-6-1998.3. The Anti-Corruption Bureau issued notice to the petitioner on 7-11-1998 requiring his explanation in the matter for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation, inter alia denying the allegations levelled against him. It isalso not necessary to notice the details of explanatio...
B.V.B. Subbarao Vs. B. Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD846
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the propriety and legality of the action of the 1st respondent, who is the District Educational Officer, Guntur, in effecting transfers of primary school teachers in Guntur District. The petitioner claims to be a probono publico character. It is stayed that he is a retired school Headmaster. This could hardly be a Public Interest Litigation nor could it be said that the petitioner is a probono publico character. If the 1st respondent in effecting the transfer has committed any irregularity or illegality and on account of such irregularity or illegality, some employees' rights are affected, it is open for the affected teachers to work out their legal remedies in accordance with law. Public Interest Litigation, as quite often said and reiterated, is essentially meant as a legal technique to espouse the cause of those sections of people, who on account of social, economic and other disabilities cannot take care of their rights and o...
State of A.P., Land Acquisition Officer, (R.D.O), Warangal and anr. Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT658
C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Since the appeal and the Writ Petition are interconnected, at the request of the counsel for parties, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.But for the sake of convenience parties would be referred to as they are arrayed in the respective proceedings i.e., petitioner and respondents in the Writ Petition and appellants and respondents in the appeal.2. As per a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) made on 21-11-1980, an extent of 31 acres 11 guntas in S.Nos.24, 26, 464 and 465 of Jangaon village and Taluq, Warangal District was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of A.P.Housing Board (appellant) and on the same day a Notification under Section 6 of the Act also was issued. Notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 21-5-1981, and after conducting an enquiry on 18-6-1981, advance possession of those lands was taken on 27-6-1981. Some of the persons whose lands were proposed to be acquired file...
Surajmal Vs. Motiram and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD720; 2002(6)ALT552
G. Yethirajulu, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No. 84 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif at Adilabad. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition of the suit schedule properties into five shares and to put him in possession of one such share.2. The averments of the plaint are briefly as follows:3. One Ramlal s/o. Motiram was the original owner of the suit schedule lands, cattle shed and a house. Ramlal died in or about the year 1967 intestate leaving behind two sons i.e., the 1st defendant and one Tulasiram and widow Durgabai. The 1st defendant is the eldest son of Ramlal. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 are his children. After the death of Ramlal the 1st defendant and his brother Tulsiram divided the joint family properties by way of family settlement in the year 1969-70. Since then the 1st defendant is enjoying the lands, cattle shed and house property jointly with the plaintiff ...
Nerella Ramulu Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1570; 2002(4)ALT342
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This Judgment, according to law, based on the legal material, placed on Record, by both the parties, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against the sole respondent, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth, in para-2, infra.2. Order, dated 28-6-1996, of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, of its file, made in OAA No. 12 of 1995.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Heard learned Counsel for the sole appellant and, the learned Counsel for the sole respondent.5. The sole appellant, herein corresponds, to sole applicant in the said OAA No. 12 of 1995, of the said Tribunal. The sole respondent, herein, respectively, corresponds to the sole respondent in the said OAA.6. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that OAA No. 12 of 1995, unless, otherwise, specified so.7. The sol...
Priyadarshini Jattu Kuli Samkshema Sangham Dowleshwaram Vs. Senior Reg ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALT706
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The writ petitioner, Priyadarshini Jattu Kuli Samkshema Sangham, Dowleshwaram East Godavari. represented by its Secretary, in short hereinafter referred to as 'Sangham' had filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), 21 and 43 of the Constitution of India the action of the respondents - Food Corporation of India, in short referred to as 'FCI' hereinafter, in seeking to exclude the members of the petitioner-Sangham for consideration for engagement under Direct Payment Scheme as per Circular No. 1R(L)/31(21)/97 dated 5-11-1997 after declaring Clause IV(ii) of the said Circular requiring working of 9 months during the previous '12 months or 12 months preceding cessation of operation in the depot, and for a consequential direction to consider engagement of the members of the petitioner-Sangham under the Direct Paym...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railw ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT63
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This judgment, according to law, based on the legal material placed, on Record, arises out of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against respondent Nos. 1 to 4, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the, validity and legality of the adjudications made by, and set forth in paragraph 2 infra.2. Orders, dated 10-9-1997, of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad made in O.A.A. No. 20 of 1997 of its file.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for both sides.5. The sole appellant herein corresponds to the sole respondent in the said O.A.A.No. 20/1997, of the said Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein correspond, respectively, to, applicant Nos. 1 to 4, in that O.A.A.6. The parties are, hereinafter referred to, as such, as in that O.A.A. No. 20/1997, unless, otherwise, so specified.7. After due enquiry into the said O.A.A. No. 20 of 1997, filed before it, by...
R. Kanthamma and ors. Vs. Boyapati Ravindra and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT253
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the senior Civil Judge, dated 23-1-2002 in E.P. No. 1/2002 in O.S.No.23/1986 ordering delivery of possession of the schedule property, the present revision is filed.2. This Court in its order dated 1-2-2002 called for the report of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, as to how he could order delivery of possession of the property on 23-1-2002 having ordered notice in execution petition on 22-1-2002.3. In his report the Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle admitted that having ordered notice in O.E.P. No. 1/2002 under Order 21 Rule 22(b) of C.P.C., withdrew the order at the instance of the respondent and ordered delivery of possession of the property which is highly illegal.4. It is true that under the provisions of Civil Procedure code, if an execution petition is filed within two years from the date of decree, an option is given to the court either to give notice to the judgment-debtor or order delivery of the property. In this case, the ...
Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1582; 2002(4)ALT344a
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This judgment, according to law based on legal material placed on record, by both the parties, arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the sole appellant against the sole respondent under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudication made by and as set forth in para 2 infra.2. The order dated 21.7.1997 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad made in O.A.A. No. 130 of 1996 on its file.3. Perused the material papers of the record.4. Arguments of the learned Counsel for appellant as well as of the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondent.5. The sole appellant herein, corresponds to the sole applicant in O.A.A. No. 130 of 1996 of the said Tribunal. The sole respondent herein corresponds to the sole respondent in that O.A.A.6. The parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their respective descriptions in that O.P. unless otherwise, specifically, referred to.7. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »