Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Gorantla Venkateswarlu Vs. B. Demudu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP251; 2003(2)ALD649
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 36 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole is the appellant.2. Respondent filed the suit against the appellant claiming damages of Rs. 20,000/-for the defamatory statements made against him by the appellant, i.e., for the appellant alleging that he (respondent) while acting as Managing Director of the Central FarmersServices Co-operative Society (for short 'Society') indulged in malpractices and was having illicit intimacy with several ladies. Appellant filed his written statement taking the plea of justification by truth. Basing on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed two issues for trial. In support of his case, respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A11. Appellant examined himself as DW.1 and two other witnesses as D.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.X-1 to X-7 through witnesses. The Trial Court held that respondent is entitled to Rs. 20,000/-as damages for t...
Bharat Metal Box Co. Ltd. Vs. G.K. Strips (P.) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)482; [2003]41SCL264(AP)
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings, in C.C. No. 584 of 1999 on the file of the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad invoking inherent powers.2. 1st respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant, is a company dealing in wholesale and retail business in steel. The 1st petitioner-company is said to be its customer. A cheque bearing No. 506485 dated 1-6-1999 for Rs. 10,68,000 was drawn on A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. towards repayment of sale consideration of the goods purchased. The cheque was presented to the bank and it was said to have been dishonoured on 28-6-1999. A legal notice dated 11-7-1999 was issued, which was sent by registered post on 12-7-1999. The accused received the said notice and acknowledged the same on 14-7-1999. Thereafter, the 1st respondent presented the complaint before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, who took it on file and numbered it as C.C. 584 of 1999. Aggrieved by the same the accused No...
Venugopal Reddy K. Vs. Managing Director, Nizam Sugars Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT155; [2002(95)FLR970]; (2003)ILLJ278AP
Ar. Lakshmanan, C. J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant and Mr. N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Nizam Sugars Limited.2. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated June 27, 2002 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 6610 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition holding that the suspension of the appellant pending enquiry is not a punishment and the same is resorted only to facilitate the smooth conduct of enquiry and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.3. Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition. It is stated at Para 12 as follows:'With regard to the averments made in Para 7, I submit that the allegations are incorrect and misleading. In fact the State Government vide D.O. Letter No.911/ P.E. 1/2001-1, dated March 27, 2001 while communicating that the allegations levell...
Veeramma and ors. Vs. A.P. Pollution Control Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT568
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Shri Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the first respondent herein, Shri B.V. Rama Mohana Rao, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.2. The petitioners were the owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 14.36 gts. situated in S.No. 172, Ac, 9.16 gts. in S.No. 17/1 and Ac. 9.27 gts. in S.No. 165 situated at Sangam Kalan village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District. Adjacent to the lands of the petitioners, a cement industry by name Visaka Cement Industry Ltd. was established which is now taken over by M/s. India Cements Limited, the 6th respondent herein. The petitioners filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:(a) Declaring the action of the first respondent in not taking any steps to prevent the air pollution caused by the 6th responde...
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Divi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD23; 2002(5)ALT131
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25-3-2002 directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice forreferring the issue relating to payment of compensation to the assignees of Government lands in the light of the Larger Bench decision reported in State of A.P. v. Bondapalli Sanyasi, : 2002(1)ALD1 (LB), and the Full Bench decision reported in State A.P. v. P. Peda Chinnayya, : 1997(1)ALT498 (FB), so that the controversy in this regard could be put to rest.2. A Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in P.Peda Chinnayya's case, (supra) held as follows:Where the Government resorts to the provisions of the Act for acquisition of the patta lands without resorting to the terms of the grant for resumption, it is liable to pay compensation under the Act, but such compensation will be only the market value of the interest of the owner or the assignee of the land, subject to the clog. In such cases of acquisition, the claimant would ...
Viswanadhula Chittibabu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)206; 2002(4)ALT456
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The learned Single Judge of this Court (E. Dharma Rao, J.) while dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 1996 against the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in CC. No. 16 of 1996 dated 5-11-1996, felt that two learned Single Judges of this Court took conflicting views and therefore the matter was referred to this Bench for laying out the correct position of law.2. The appellant in that appeal was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506(2) I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to 'as the said Act'). Basing upon the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered.3. It was the allegation in the said complaint that on 17-5-1995 the accused trespassed into the mango garden of P.W.1, who is the Harijan Woman, and committed criminal intimidation by pushing her and further abused P.W.1 by saying 'Mala Yedava'. After investigati...
Penneru Veera Raghava Rao Alias Raghavarao Vs. Penneru Ravi Alias Rama ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD152
C.Y. Somayajuluy, J.1. When CMP No. 13161 of 2002 is taken up for hearing, at the instance of the Counsel for both sides the appeal itself is heard.2. This appeal arises out of the order dismissing IA No. 1815 of 1992 in AS No. 79 of 1987 on the file of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, filed under Order 41, Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC to restore the appeal, which was dismissed for default, to file.3. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the petition in IA No. 1815 of 1992 are that when the appeal was posted for hearing on 4-8-1992, the appellant was held up at Visakhapatnam to attend on his eldest daughter, who was hospitalized, and so he could not approach his Counsel at Machilipatnam to prosecute the appeal, and subsequently he came to know that the appeal was dismissed for default, and so the appeal may be restored to file and heard on merits.4. The said application was opposed on the ground that ...
Syed Allabaksh and ors. Vs. Zainab Bi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD333
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 71/88 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool are the appellants. Respondents 1 to 3 in this Appeal are the plaintiffs in the said suit and 4th respondent is the 2nd defendant in the said suit. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiffs praying for the relief of partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the plaint schedule properties and also for past and future profits. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'. 3. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties and after settling the relevant Issues, had recorded the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 and DW-1 to DW-3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-1 to B-19 and had ultimately dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 71/88 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, the p...
Lankala Koderu Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs. Ungarala Pullaiah Naid ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT380
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner-The Lankala Koderu Co-operative Rural Bank limited, Palacol, West Godavari District, represented by its Secretary filed this writ petition, aggrieved of the order dated 30-4-1997 passed in O.A.No. 252 of 1994 by the 2nd respondent Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, which was directed against the order of surcharge proceedings issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on the basis of report of enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, the Act). The Co-operative Tribunal interfered with the order impugned therein on the ground that the Deputy Registrar, Bhimavaram has not conducted regular enquiry as contemplated under Section 60 of the Act before passing surcharge order and directed the first respondent herein to refund an amount of Rs. 2,96,784.40 Ps. collected from 57 loanees of the petitioner-Bank, which was found to be misappropriated by the first respondent. Accordingly, the Tr...
Uco Bank and anr. Vs. M. Venuranganath
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD382; 2002(5)ALT162; [2002(95)FLR603]; (2002)IIILLJ1062AP
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-11-1997 in Writ Petition No. 15797 of 1994, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. Facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the case, are as follows :3. The respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, joined the services of the appellant-Bank on 16-3-1966 as Clerk. On1-1-1976 he was promoted as Officer Scale I; and was posted as Accountant at Guntur in the month of June, 1976 and thereafter wards in the month of April, 1979 he was transferred as Manager to Nellore Branch. It seems that on the alleged ground that he granted ten bricks loans and three duck loans, unauthorizedly and in violation of the regulations governing grant of such loans, in the year 1982 itself, the bank-management ordered preliminary enquiry by appointing one Sri S. Srinivasan and the report was submitted by the officer in the year 1982.4. Subsequently, on 23-3-1987 the crime alleged aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »