Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
M. Jignesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)18; 2003CriLJ739
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. A-2 in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, is the appellant.2. Appellant and four others were charge- sheeted for offences under Sections 376, 384, 506, 509, 109 and 120-A read with Section 34, I.P.C. Since A-3 in the crime wasabsconding, the case against him was splitup and appellant and three others were committed to take therein trial in a Court of Session. The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, to whom the case wasmade over, framed charges under Sections 120-B, 109, 376, 384, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C., Section 506 I.P.C. read withSection 34 I.P.C. and Section 509 I.P.C. readwith Section 34, I.P.C. against the appellantand the other accused. The appellant andthe three other accused not pleaded guiltyof the offences charged against them. Insu...
Y. Razia Bee and anr. Vs. Registrar (Administration) High Court of A.P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT72
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy for the petitioner and Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, Standing Counsel for the High Court, for respondents.2. The first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of one Y. Abdul Sattar, who was working in the Judicial Department. He died on 16-6-1998 in harness. After his demise, the first petitioner made an application to the District Judge, Anantapur, requesting him to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds as there are no earning members in the family and that he has passed SSC examination. At that time, the second petitioner was a minor. The then District Judge issued proceedings dated 12-8-1998 to renew the application after the second petitioner becomes major. After the second petitioner attained majority, he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent herein requesting him to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent sought for clarification from the first respo...
M. Yoga Priya Vs. the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD188
1. The common question that arises for decision in this batch of writ petitions is whether the NTR University of Health Sciences, one of the respondents in the writ petitions, is justified in refusing to permit the petitioner-students to appear for the first year MBBS Examinations scheduled to be conducted between 7.10.2002 and 16.10.2002 merely on the ground that the petitioner-students were admitted to the first year MBBS Course after 12.11.2001.2. Facts of W.P.Nos.16805, 15905, 16339 and 17120 of 2002:All the petitioners-students had appeared for EAMCET examination and they are fully qualified to be considered for admission to the first year MBBS course during the academic year 2001-2002 by securing the required ranks in the merit list. However, the petitioners were not selected for admission to the first year MBBS course in the 1st and 2nd phases of admissions in respect of which counseling was held in the month of September, 2001 and November, 2001 respectively. The admissions of ...
Arvind L. Abhyankar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP94; 2002(5)ALD763; 2003(1)ALT336
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. All these four writ petitions are interconnected, and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of expedience, the petitioner in WP No. 9684 of 1994 shall be referred to as 'the Builder' for he is said to have constructed the multi-storied building christened 'Meera Niketan' located a Kutbiguda, Hyderabad, while the petitioners in WP Nos.9875, 10639 and 10755 of 1994, shall be referred to as 'the Purchasers' for they claim to have purchased the flats in the building, and while the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall be referred to as 'the Corporation'.3. The Builder filed WP No. 9684 of 1994, initially impugning the press release dated 11-5-1994, issued by the Corporation, in the newspapers, namely The Hindu, Newstime, Indian Express, etc., threatening to demolish the building, as illegal and arbitrary.4. Subsequently, the Builder filed WP MP No. 27085 of 1999 seeking to amend the prayer in t...
Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation and ors. Vs. Hamali ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD75
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Both the writ appeals are directed against the same order of the learned single Judge dated 24-1-2002 in WP No. 20060 of 2001. WA No. 180 of 2002 is filed by the Warehousing Corporation and its authorities, whereas WA No. 193 of 2002 is filed by the Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Medak. 4th respondent in the writ petition. The above writ petition was filed by the Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Kuchampally, the first respondent in the writ appeals, praying for the following relief.'Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ especially writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents authorities in not considering the petitioner society Tender Form and awarding the contract in favour of 4th respondent in pursuance of Tender Notification No. CWC/HYD/C.III/ RAYANAPADU/2001 dated 3-3-200...
M. Kuppuswami Naidu Vs. V. Chandrasekhar Reddi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT395
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same suit.Both the Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders dated 10-3-1995 made in I.A.Nos. 366 and 586 of 1990 in O.S.No. 318 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows;The plaintiff is Srimad Abinava Ramanuja Brahmathantra Swathantra Prakala Swamiji. He is represented by his power of attorney holder Mr. N. Narasimha Reddy. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking division of the plaint schedule land into four equal shares and to allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff and to put him in separate possession of the same. Permanent injunction is also claimed restraining others from changing the physical features of the land. The plaintiff has also claimed some other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, Srimad Abinava ...
G. Nasar Reddy and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)677; 2002(6)ALT90
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 27115 of 1997 was filed by the owner of the vehicle for a Mandamus declaring the proceedings passed by the first respondent, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Cr. No. 1964/97/DPE/B-2, dated 27-8-1997 in confirming the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise passed in Proceedings Rc. No. 1008/95/A-3 dated 15-3-1997 in confiscating the petitioner's lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 1134 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.2. According to the petitioner, the lorry owned by him was seized on 4-6-1995 by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Excise Station, Nellore on the allegation that the driver of the lorry was in possession of 18 liquor bottles when it was checked while coming from Nayudupeta to Markapur and consequently a crime was registered in Cr. No. 153/94-95 on the file of the third respondent and the driver and cleaner were arrested and later they wer...
Siemens Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD492; 2002(6)ALT446; [2003(96)FLR819]
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 4.8.1997 in ID No. 15 of 1996, I am disposing of by this common order. 2. W.P. No. 28776/1997 is filed by Siemens Limited i.e., the Management, aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal in entertaining the I.D., even though it has no territorial jurisdiction and further ordering reinstatement while holding the workman guilty. 3. WP No. 19426/1999 is filed by the workman aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal in denying the back wages. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'the Workman' and 'the Management'. 5. The brief facts are that the workman joined as Service Engineer in the respondent-Management on 13.9.1971 and his services were later confirmed on 8.10.1973. Transferability was one of the service conditions. He was transferred from one place to another on different occasions, but he never disputed those transfers and obeyed them. While...
Divakar Sahu Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD232
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. By order dated 13.4.2002, the Collector and District Magistrate, Srikakulam the 1st respondent herein, in Rc.No. 1200/9/Cl, cancelled the Caste Certificate of the appellant herein and declared that the appellant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed WP 8440 of 2002 seeking to set aside the said order. A learned single Judge of this Court, Shri Ramanujam, J., while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 26th April, 2002 observed as follows: Undisputedly, an appeal lies against the impugned order to the Government underSection 7 of the Act. Without exhausting that remedy of appeal under the statute, the petitioner directly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In normal course, I would have dismissed this writ petition as not maintainable. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the cancellation order was issued in utter violation of principles ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.G. Suma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC287; 2004ACJ883; 2002(6)ALT465
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. This appeal is filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.2. It appears that claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein had filed O.P. No. 216 of 2000 before the said Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on the death of one Badrinarayana, who died in the motor accident which took place on 10.1.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. As far as the incident is concerned, there is no dispute. On recording the evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. There was also a direction for making fixed deposits in the names of the claimants.3. Aggrieved by the said award, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal on the ground that the liability for paying compensation was wrongly fastened on them. It was also contended that Andhra Pradesh St...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »