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.
Bura Manohar Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)184; 2002CriLJ3322
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is a petition filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 78 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4-9-2001 at about 5 p.m. the petitioner, who is a Motor Vehicle Inspector, stopped the lorry being driven by Tirupathi Reddy, the husband of the de facto complainant (L.W. 1) and demanded vehicle documents on the pretext that the lorry is overloaded and after the deceased handed over the documents of the lorry, the petitioner pulled the deceased down by holding his shirt collar, from the lorry and abused him in vulgar language and kicked with his shoe and directed him to bring the lorry to his office. So, the deceased took the lorry to the office of the petitioner, located at Peddapalli and kept the lorry in front of his office and no sooner than the deceased got down from the lorry, petitioner pulled him into his office and beat him and directed him to bring some amount by the next...
Syed Kazim Bahadur Vs. District Collector, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD507; 2002(3)ALT739
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The dispute brought before this Court in this writ petition bristles with factual controversies relating to the title and possession of the land and property. As could be seen from the impugned show-cause notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad dated 18-1-2001, the land in question is a tank bed and therefore it belongs to the Government. This claim of the Mandal Revenue Officer is contested before the learned single Judge contending that the subject land was gifted to the appellant by way of gift deed dated 25-4-1968. What transpires from the claim and counter-claim of the respondent authorities and the appellant petitioner is a dispute relating to the title and possession of the land and property.2. It is quite often said and reiterated that primarily Article 226 is not meant to establish the rights but it is meant to enforce the established rights. The dispute regarding the title and possession cannot be effectively resolved in a summary proceeding ...
Competant Authority, Under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD272
ORDERR. Ramanujam, J. 1. These writ petitions and the civil revision petitions are classic examples of law's delays and decree holders woes. Since all the writ petitions and civil revision petitions are filed against a common order of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in EP No.230 of 1998 and batch, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts, which are common to all the writ petitions and civil revision petitions, may now briefly be stated: 3. The unofficial respondents in all the writ petitions and the civil revision petitions, hereinafter referred to as 'the land owners'' for the sake of brevity, are the owners of a piece of land, called Kanakala Dibba, admeasuring about 47,642 Sq. feet situated in J.S.No. 1451 of Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam Municipality, hereinafter referred to as 'the Property in dispute'. That land was leased out on monthly basis to the petitioners in the civil revision petitioners and some others, hereinafter referred to as ...
V. Veeraiah Vs. Secretary to Govt., Revenue (Ff.ii) Department and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT434
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. At the outset, this Court must observe that an instantaneous reaction to injustice must be part of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and to put the State and the Government in their limits. This case would demonstrate that this Court is justified in making these observations.2. The petitioner was a freedom fighter. He fought against the all powerful Nizam State of Hyderabad. In accordance with the scheme of the State Government to give pension to freedom fighters, he applied for the same some time in 1978. The Tahsildar enquired into his application and sent a report on 19-5-1980. Based on such report, the Government issued an order being G.O.Ms. No. 3469, Revenue (FF.II) Department, dated 1-8-1980 sanctioning, on provisional basis, the freedom fighters pension under the said scheme to the petitioner at Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 6-3-1978. The pension sanctioned...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.R. Usharani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1195; 2004(1)ALT401
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the orders dated 1.12.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad) in O.P. No. 568 of 1994.2. The claimants are the legal representatives of the pillion rider Dr. G. Ramakrishna Reddy who died in an accident that took place on 21.11.1993. On that day, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by the respondent No. 1 in the O.P. bearing No. ATC 7103, from Krishna Oberoi Hotel towards the University. While so, on the way, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, unfortunate accident had occurred in which the pillion rider was severely injured and immediately he was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 31.12.1993. The legal representatives of the deceased pillion rider lodged a petition in O.P. No. 568 of 1994 claiming compensation for the death of the decea...
Yelamarti Veera Venkata Jagannadha Gupta and anr. Vs. Vejju Venkateswa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALT448
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S. No. 158/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tadepallegudem against the appellants for their eviction and for damages contending that they have purchased the suit schedule property from one Muddam Paparao, respondent No. 3 herein. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 44/88 on the file of the same Court against Muddam Paparao, the original owner, and the respondents 1 and 2 herein and others for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 1-5-1988. The Court below by a common judgment decreed the suit O.S. No. 158/88 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and dismissed O.S. No. 44/88 which was confirmed by the learned single Judge in his common judgment and decree dated 20-2-2002 passed in A.S. Nos.286/96 and 40/99. The learned single Judge allowed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 158/88. Aggrieved by this, the present LPA.2. For brevity, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O...
Dasari Srihari Rao Vs. Talluri Harinadha Babu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD456; 2002(3)ALT484
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, advocate for the appellant. The respondent herein filed IP No. 6 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla to declare him as an insolvent. The appellant herein who is one of the respondents-creditors opposed the said application on the ground that the respondent is guilty of suppression of facts as regards his assets and the insolvency application was filed only to evade the rightful debts. The Subordinate Judge, Bapatla having recorded a finding that the respondent herein had suppressed his assets and such failure would disentitle him to make an application and had dismissed his application by an order dated 10-8-1987 relying upon the judgment of a learned single Judge (Lakshmaiah, J.,) of this Court in S. Siva Rama Rao v. Suresh Trading Company, 1977 (2) An. WR 462.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed AS No. 145 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur who by judgment dated 19-6-1989 had allowed the ...
Y. Jaya Venkata Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD471; 2002(3)ALT742
Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ. 1. The prayer in this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to appoint an Arbitrator or Arbitrators by thisCourt to arbitrate on all the claims farming part of dispute arising out of two ContractNos. 66/CAO/C/SC/94 and 71/CAO/C/SC/94. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this arbitration application that the applicant was awarded by the Opposite Party No. 2 the above two contracts for earth work in formation and construction of Bridges and miscellaneous works from Ch. 26000 M to Ch. 27000 M in Reaches I and II in Forest area. During the execution of the said contracts, certain disputes arose and as per the terms and conditions of the contract agreements, which contain an arbitration Clause, the applicant requested the 1st opposite party to refer the disputes for arbitration and the 1st opposite party agreed for the same and appointed not only two Arbitrators - Sri K.V.B. Reddy and Sri N.S.N. Murthy - for bot...
Society for Cancer in Oral-cavity Prevention Through Education, Hydera ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD525; 2002(3)ALT579
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Society for Cancer in Oral-Cavity prevention through Education, P.S. Nagar, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Trustee Dr. B. Chandrakanth Rao has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action on the part of the official respondents in not declaring the oral use of Paan Masaia, Gutka, Zarda and other tobacco related items as highly deleterious and dangerous to public health leading to cancer, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of India, more particularly, Article 47 of the Constitution of India and for consequential directions to the respective Governments to discharge the constitutional duties obligated on them un...
Chittipolu Kishan and ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD578; 2002(4)ALT93
Gopalakrishna Tamada, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants assail the judgment of learned single Judge dated 18-10-2001 in Writ Petition No.28338 of 1996 by which the same is dismissed.2. The factual matrix according to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by the appellants herein who are the writ petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of the agricultural patta lands situated in Survey Nos. 135, 137, 151, 267, 269, 276,277, 278, 279, 281 and 284 of Chintapally village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District and that they are in possession of the same and they are cultivated under the Nagarjuna Sagar Project. It is their further contention that they are small farmers too. While so, it is alleged that with a view to supply water to the tail end agricultural lands of Kistapuram village of Miryalaguda Mandal, the respondents raised the bunds of the Chintapalli village tank, maintaining water through out the year. So as to store m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »