Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Union of India (Uoi), Secunderabad Vs. B. Koddekar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1286; AIR2003AP23; 2002(4)ALT310
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Since a common question of law is raised in all these appeals, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.2. These appeals are preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, against five different awards made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad.3. On behalf of the appellant-Railways in these appeals, a common question of law is urged before this Court contending that the payment of compensation in respect of an 'untoward incident' arises if the deceased are the bonafide railway passengers with a valid ticket and there should be an accidental fall of the deceased passenger from the train carrying passengers.4. Before answering the legal issue raised before us, we shall now discuss, in brief, facts of each case separately.5. CMA No.2374 of 1998 : This appeal is filed against the order in OAA No. 130 of 1997 dated 6-7...
Pre. Jothi Education Society Vs. Secretary, Major Irrigation, Governme ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD83; 2002(4)ALT417
ORDERMBN, J.1. The appellant in W.A.No.850 of 2001 and the petitioner in W.P.No.9609 of 2001 are on and the same. During the course of hearing of the Writ Appeal, we suggested to the learned counsel for the parties that the Writ Petition could also be taken up for hearing along with the Writ Appeal so that the controversy raised in the Writ Petition could be decided. The learned counsel agreed to our suggestion and as such, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up for decision and we dispose of the same by the following common order:Before we decide the issue raised in the writ petition, few facts are set out for proper appreciation of the case of the writ petitioner as well as the respondents. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to with their status in the writ petition.2. The writ petitioner-Jyothi Education Society, Vijayawada was established in the year 1964 under Regd.No.95/1964. The object of the petitioner-Society is to establish educational institutio...
Md. AzharuddIn Vs. Dr. A. Muthaiiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002AP409
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. These three CRPs arise out of a common order dated 17-10-2001 passed in I.A. Nos. 1659, 2844 and 2845 of 2001 in O.S. No. 10 of 2001 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. Since these three revisions arise out of a common order, they are taken up together and are being decided by the following common order.3. Petitioner in these three revisions is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10 of 2001 which is instituted under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC seeking the following relief's, viz.,a) By declaring a portion of clause 38(ii) of the Rules of BCCI after its severance to the extent which precludes, prohibits the plaintiff from calling into question the action taken by the committee as a result of an enquiry under the clause, in any court of law as bad, illegal, unconstitutional opposed to public policy; b) And by declaring the appointment of defendant No.2 and report drawn up by him as null and void, contrary to the established procedure and...
K. Shiva Prasad Vs. C. Sree Ramulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD476; 2002(6)ALT406
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of execution proceedings in furtherance of an order of eviction passed under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dated 31-7-2001 rejecting an application filed under Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules is the subject-matter of the revision petition.2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:The 1st respondent herein filed RC No. 9 of 1995 seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The said eviction petition, after contest was allowed by order dated 13-9-1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent herein who is the sole respondent in RC No. 9 of 1995 preferred RA No. 644 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but the same was dismisse...
V.K. Roy Vs. Commissioner of M.C.H., Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT236
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Since the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by this common order.2. Petitioners in all these three writ petitions are owners of immovable properties in Hyderabad and Secunderabad and are liable to pay property tax as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act').3. Petitioner in W.P.No. 9735 of 1995 was issued a demand notice by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the property tax for the period commencing from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1993.Petitioner in W.P.No. 19681 of 1995 was also issued a demand notice seeking to recover property tax for the years from 1979 to 1995; and in so far as the petitioners in W.P.No. 20724 of 1995 are concerned, a demand notice was issued seeking to recover arrears of property tax for the period commencing from 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1992. Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 9735 and 20724 of 1995 have challenged the demand notices be...
Godisela Rajamma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1404; 2002(4)ALD632; 2002(4)ALT370
Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. This appeal is filed assailing the order made in OAA No. 66 of 1998 dated 10-9-1999 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. 2. Appellants, six in all, residents of Budigadda Basthi, Bellampally, Adilabad District, instituted the said OAA No. 66 of 1998, seeking compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of Godisela Rajaiah. The 1st appellant is the wife, 2nd appellant is the mother and appellants 3 to 6 are the daughters of the deceased Godisela Rajaiah. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that on 8-3-1998 Godisela Rajaiah was travelling in D.N. Mangala Express train from Chandrapur to Ramagundam in a general compartment with ticket bearing No. 25674. He accidentally fell down from the train at the place between Rechini RD/Bellampally at Kms.239/20-22 and died on the spot. On account of the death of Godisela Rajaiah, the appellants herein claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. 3. On behalf of the Railways, a written statement was filed den...
Ms. Rama R. Rao and 2 ors. Vs. Mr. Veerabhadra R. Bathina and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)289; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)209
S.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioners who are accused 4 to 6 in C.C.No.1988 of 1997 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad invoke the inherent powers of this court to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 500 and 501 I.P.C.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows:The first respondent is an employee ofM/s. Intergraph Corporation, USA. M/s. Intergraph Corporation, USA has a subsidiary in India known as Intergraph (India) Pvt. Ltd. The first respondent was appointed as a Director on the Board of Directors of Intergraph (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 31-7-1987.The shares of Intergraph (India) Private Limited are held by two Indian shareholders viz. the second petitioner and one Mr. . with effect from 21-1-1993.As the matters stood thus, five top officials of Intergraph (India) Private Limited resigned on 8-4-1996 due to dissatisfaction caused among the staff in respect of the mismanagement b...
Andhra Pradesh State Essential Commodities Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Registrar o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)263; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)256
ORDER1. The petitioners who are accused in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 on the file of Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be succinctly stated as follows :The 1st petitioner is a Government company. Petitioners 2 and 3 are directors in the office of the said company at the time of filing of complaint. Under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1977 there is a statutory obligation on the part of the company and its directors to file the approved balance sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days before the Registrar of Companies after laying them before the annual general meeting. The audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on 30-6-1989 have to be laid before the annual general meeting to be held on 31 -12-1989 as required under Section 210 of the Act. It is ...
Sama Yadaiah @ Yadi Reddy and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD195; 2003(1)ALT83
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioners 8 in number were the owners of Ac. 16,35 gts of land comprised in Sy.No. 148, situated at Jillalguda village of Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which land hereinafter shortly referred to as the 'schedule land'. The schedule land was the agricultural land and the petitioners used to cultivate the same. There was requisition for the schedule land by the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, at Secunderabad, the 2nd respondent herein for public purpose i.e., usage for Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratories (DMRL). Although the requisition from the authority was for acquiring the entire land needed for the purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), only some lands were notified under the provisions of the Act and the remaining required lands were notified only under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (for short 'RAIP Act'). The schedule land was notified under the RAIP Act....
Sammeta Tulasi Ram and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD568; 2004(3)ALT200
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in AS No. 44 of 1985 on the file of the 1 Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 264 of 1975 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Machilipatnam.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from attaching the plaint schedule property, crops raised thereon and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 960/- from defendants 1 to 3.3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was purchased by the father ofthe plaintiffs 1 and 2, S.Venkateswara Rao, under a registered sale-deed dated 3-5-1948. He was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land till his death in 1972. After his death, the suit property devolved on the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs I and 2 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »