Andhra Pradesh Court January 2003 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.
Justice Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and ors. Vs. Government of India, Ministr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT328
Bilal Nazki, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by seven Writ Petitioners raising same questions of law and fact and therefore they are decided by this common judgment. The assertions made in one of the Writ Petitions being W.P.No. 11420/2001 are referred for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions.2. All the petitioners had been Judges of the High Court at various points of time. All the Judges have been sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per month and the family pension is fixed at 30% of the pension payable to these Judges. The grievance of the petitioners is that, Section 17-A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by Act 7 of 1999 is discriminatory and offending to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section-17-A reads as under:'17-A. Family pension and gratuities -- Where a Judge who, being in service, on or after the commencement of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendmen...
Nutech Organic Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gmr Technologies and Indust ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)296; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)848; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)555; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)37; II(2003)BC435; 2003CriLJ1462
K.C. Bhanu, J. 1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order, dated 8.11.2002, in Crl. M.P. No. 8059/2002 in C.C. No. 640/1999 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to discharge them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case are that the 1st respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners alleging that the accused and the complainant entered into a memorandum of understanding in respect of export of castor oil derivatives, that the accused committed default in fulfilling the terms of the M.O.U. as there were discrepancies in the documents of shipping, that the goods shipped were of inferior quality which resulted in the rejection of the material by the buyer, that in view of the defaults committed by the accused in the ...
Bodla Ravindranath Vs. Chintala Venkata Laxmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD426; 2003(4)ALT105
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, first respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that she isthe only heir, successor and owner of the suit schedule property - double storied building bearing Municipal Nos.15-2-314 and 315 situated at Kishangunj, Hyderabad. According to her she is the only legal heir entitled to succession of the said suit schedule property. The property originally belong to one Bodla Raghavulu. He died some time in 1932. His wife, Bodla Jejamma became the sole heir and was enjoying property. Raghavulu and Jejamma had one daughter by name Venkatamma, who predeceased Jejamma. Venkatamma's daughter Sulochana was married to first defendant/ second respondent-Kashinath and they had only daughter Chintala Venkatalaxmi who is the plaintiff. Sulochana also died leaving behind her the plaintiff. Kashinath married Danamma again and through her he got two sons and one daughter. Bodla Ravindranath is eldest son and he is arrayed as second...
Eci Engineering and Construction Co. Limited Rep. by Its Director Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD629; 2003(2)ALT51
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner-company herein invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. 19005/M.II(1)/2001-3, dated 20-2-2002 issued by the first respondent and the consequential demand Notice No. 4823/MR2/99, dated 15-3-2002 issued by the second respondent, as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner-company was awarded a work of site levelling and grading work (part of Group-I of Tender No. BHEL:PS:SCT:808) in the plant area in 2 x 500 MW Simhadri Thermal Power Project, near Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) as sub-contract. We have noticed the details and terms and conditions of the sub-contract in W.P. No. 6916 of 2002 and Batch. The scope of the sub-contract entrusted to the petitioner involves (1) Earth work Excavation, back filling, disposal as per the specification...
Gayatri Projects Limited Rep. by Its Senior Manager, Sri P. Kameswara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT454
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner-company invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in (1) Notice No. 2946/Q2/2001, dated 4-7-2001; (2) Notice No. 2946/Q2/2001, dated 26-9-2001; (3) Demand Notice No. 2946/Q2/2001, dated 29-12-2001; and (4) Lr. No. 2946/Q2/ 2001, dated 19-1-2002 issued by the third respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law. The petitioner-company accordingly challenges the levy of normal seigniorage fee and five times penalty thereon as illegal and unjust.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the impugned proceedings suffer from any legal infirmities, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition:The petitioner-company, similar to that of the petitioners in other writ petition...
Progressive Construction Ltd., Represented by their Power of Attorney, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD643; 2003(1)ALT593
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. These three writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, since the same are directed against the common order dated 4-2-2002 passed by the Government in exercise of its revisional power under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequential demand notice dated 20-2-2002 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology.W.P. No. 6916 of 2002 2. The petitioner-company invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent-Government in Memo No. 8817/ M.II.(1)/2001-6, dated 4-2-2002 and the consequent demand notice No. 4823/MR2/99-3, dated 20-2-2002 of the second respondent-Director of Mines and Geology and the proceedings of the third respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology in Lr. No. 2946/Q2/ 2001-3, dated 28-3-2002 and quash the same. The proceedings, acco...
Bomma Ilaiah Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)965; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)340; 2003CriLJ2439; II(2003)DMC461
K.C. Bhanu, J. 1. The revision is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 123/1996, dated 10.8.2000, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereunder while the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gajwel in C.C. No. 4/1993, dated 5.12.1996, against A2 and A3 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was set aside, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was confirmed and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 325 I.P.C., was modified and A1 was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simpl...
Tammina Ananda Kumar Vs. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Buildings S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP287; 2003(2)ALD297; 2003(6)ALT814
Goda Raghuram, J.1. CMP No. 1 1805/2002 in CMP No. 24385/2001 in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the respondent in the Appeal to vacate the interim order dated 21-12-2001 passed in CMP No. 24385/2001, when the said vacate application camp up for hearing, both the Counsel representing the parties had advanced elaborate arguments and made a request to dispose of the main Appeal itself and thus, with the consent of both the Counsel, the main Appeal itself was heard and the same is being disposed of.2. The appellant herein filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'Code' in short, as against an order made in IA No. 1410/2000 in OS No. 403/2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The 'appellant herein, the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code praying for temporary injunction against the responde...
K. Srinivasulu Vs. District Collector (Election Authority) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD631; 2003(1)ALT746
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. The only and important question that is to be decided in this writ petition is, whether the election dispute can be raised before the District Munsiff as per the unamended Sub-section (3) of Section 61, or before the Tribunal after amendment of the said sub-section of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The factual matrix is that the petitioner was the elected President of the Gudibanda Fisherman Co-operative Society. The 4th respondent is the candidate who lost the election. Hence he filed O.P.No. 22/2001 on 24.12.2001 before the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad and eventually the O.P. was allowed, resulting in filing of the writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri B. Srinivasa Rao assailing the impugned judgment, mainly contended that the Junior Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the election dispute after the amendment to Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act, which ca...
Pattam Abdullah Khan Vs. T. Venkatarami Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC737; 2004ACJ1951; 2003(2)ALD786; 2003(3)ALT203
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.11.1999 in W.C. Case No. 131 of 1994 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur.2. The appellant filed a petition for compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that while he was working as a Cleaner in a lorry belonging to the first respondent in the course of discharge of his duties as a Cleaner, he was traveling in the lorry ATG 9799 on 10.8.1990 and sustained injuries in the course of his employment. The claim application was opposed by the owner of the lorry as well as the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured by the first respondent. The Commissioner granted a total compensation of Rs. 21,034-00 payable by both the respondents jointly to the appellant - claimant. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, the workman - claimant preferred the present appeal.3. A pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »