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.
Gudurusyamala Devi Vs. Attola Ammarvara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD151; 2002(5)ALT247
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this appeal the defendant in OS No. 14 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, challenges the decree and judgment passed therein.2. The plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister.3. The plaint averments in brief are as under:4. One Kavuri Sankaraiah was declared insolvent in the year, 1956 in I.P.No. 10/56. He composed his debts to various creditors and filed I.A.No. 740/64, for annulment of the adjudication so that his properties are relieved from the burden on account of his having been adjudicated as insolvent. Two creditors by name Dasari Sundaramaiah and Dasari Brahmaiah objected for the annulment of the adjudication at that stage, and the same was dismissed and the matter was carried in appeal to District Court, in A.S.No. 189/74. During the pendency of the said appeal, the said creditors compromised the matter with Kavuri Sankaraiah and received Rs. 19,000/- in full and final settlement As Kavuri Sankaraiah had no means to pay ...
Aljapur Ganga Mohan Vs. District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD163
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12-8-1998 in WP No. 27262 of 1996. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant assailed the validity of the order dated 9-7-1996 of the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent herein and also the notice dated 7-9-1996 issued by the Executive Officer, Madmidipalli Gram Panchayat, Armoor Taluk, the 3rd respondent herein.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly and they are as follows: The appellant isthe owner of the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 78 and 79 of Mamidipalli village of Armoor Taluk having purchased the same by a registered sale dced dated 4-12-1992 from the previous owners. After purchase of the land, the appellant sought permission from the Gram Panchayat, Mamidipalli, the 2nd respondent herein, for construction of mulgies. The 2nd respondent, by i...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Limite ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1857; 2002(4)ALD130; 2002(4)ALT280
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14-12-1995 passed in OA No. 10 of 1993 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 2. The respondent-Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Limited, Hyderabad laid a claim for compensation from the Railways for short delivery of coal contained in three wagons, out of the full consignment of 10 wagons booked from Bellampally to Sanathnagar on 24-3-1992. The respondent also claimed proportionate refund of railway fare. 3. The case of the respondent-claimant was that 10 wagons of coal were booked from Bellampally to Sanathnagar on 24-3-1992 and they reached the destination, out of which three wagons were reached after a lapse of considerable length of time i.e., on 1-5-1992. Therefore, suspecting that there is some pilferage or illegal transportation of the coal, they sought for re-weighment of the coal, which was refused. Therefore, the delivery was taken and when it was reweighed in the factory ...
J. Venkateswarlu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Cabinet S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT725; 2002CriLJ4009
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 'to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 21, proviso to Article 309, Article 311 and also Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also declare Cl. 4 (d) of Memo No.700/SC/D/88-4 dated 13-2-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, if necessary by declaring Sections 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violating the basic structure and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to drop all proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. No.10/RC-NLR/95, dated 19-09-1995 initiated by the respondents herein bef...
Kotari Kasulamma Vs. Gontini Chilukamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALT114
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment-dated 17.6.1999 in S.C.No.40 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. 2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. She filed the suit on the basis of two promissory notes dated 25.8.1991 and 25.6.1991 (Exs.A-1 and A-3 respectively) said to have been executed by the husband of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On Ex.A-1 pro-note, there is a part-payment endorsement dated 20.4.1992 (Ex.A-2). On Ex.A-3 pro-note, there is a part-payment endorsement dated 20.4.1992 (Ex.A-4). She wanted to recover a sum of Rs.5,500/- payable under the above two pro-notes after deducting the part-payments made by the husband of the defendant. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the two pro-notes as well as the two part-payment endorsements. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Trial Court found that the two pro-notes as well as the two part-payment en...
Siri Engineering Contractors, Vijayawada Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD228
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. By this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), the applicant is seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.2. As per the averments of the affidavit, the applicant was the lowesttenderer and his tender was accepted by the Respondents for the work of 'Narasaraopet-Proposed additions and alterations to the Station Building', costing about Rs. 11,61,366/-. Accordingly an agreement was entered into between the parties dated 19-04-1999 and as per the terms of the said agreement the work was to be completed within 6 months from the date of issuance of letter of acceptance i.e., 8-12-1998. In connection with the said work, the applicant raised certain claims and issued letters seeking settlement of the claims by Notice dated 10-5-2001 and 7-6-2001. As the Respondents did not settle the claims of the applicant, the applicant requested the 1st Res...
Jai Narayan Misra (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. Hashmathunnisa Begum (Died) Per ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD406; 2002(3)ALT689
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. SA No. 1048 of 2001 was filed by the defendants in OS No. 1061 of 1998 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred AS No. 52 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. When the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal, the defendants preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. 2. SA No. 1050 of 2001 is also filed by the defendants in OS No. 3061 of 1990 against the findings of the first appellate Court in the cross objections filed by the plaintiffs in AS No. 52 of 1999. Since both the appeals arise out of the same suit, they are disposed of through this common judgment. 3. The first plaintiff filed OS No. 1061 for dissolution of partnership firm known asM/s. Anand Cinema, to direct the defendantsto render accounts, to direc...
P. Krishna and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD595
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga .Reddy District in proceedings in D.No. 3084 of 1996, dated 12-9-1996 andalso the constitutional validity of subsection 4(i) of Section 14 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Lands) Act, 1973.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belonging to Backward Class and Scheduled Caste and also they fall under landless poor category. Some of the petitioners are Freedom Fighters.3. Certain persons, who filed their declarations under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Lands) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were declared as surplus holders under the provisions of the said Act and it is open for the Government to allot the lands to the landless poor.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Full Bench in the case reported in Maddukuri V...
Barigala Sailu and anr. Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Koth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD619
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. In these two writ petitions the Circular No.P.14/2643/IR/188 dated 11-2-2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential charge-sheets issued for disobeying the instructions are challenged. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts leading to filing these writ petitions are as under:3. In W.P.No.1977 of 2001 the 1st petitioner is working as Head-Overman under the control of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd petitioner is working as Welder under the control of the 4th respondent. Both the petitioners are residents of Kothagudem town. While so, the 2nd respondent issued impugned circular dated 11-2-2000 imposing restriction on the employees of the Company from contesting in the elections to the Parliament/Legislative Assembly/ Municipalities/Panchayat Raj Institutions and other local bodies while continuing as employees of the Company. The said circular further st...
Madhava Hytech Engineers Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Sou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD185; 2003(1)ALT321; 2003(1)ARBLR611(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. In this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), the applicant is seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.2. According to the applicant, it was the lowest tender for the Guage Conversion of UBL-LD Section from Meter Guage to Broad Guage in respect of Bridge Nos.87 and 91, which was accepted by the Respondents. Accordingly, an agreement dated 27-01-1995 was entered into between the parties. The said agreement includes the General Conditions of Contract (for short 'the General Conditions'), which provides for reference of dispute to arbitration under Clause 64 of the said conditions. As per the original agreement, the contracted work was for an amount of Rs.71.27 lakhs and the same has to be completed within a period of three months. While the applicant was executing the said work, certain additional works were entrusted to the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »