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.
C. Munikrishnaiah and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD184
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. It is expedient to dispose of all the six writ petitions by a common order as common questions of fact and law arise for consideration.2. The petitioners in all the matters seek a declaration that the award being Award No. 1 of 1998, dated 12-3-1998 passed by the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.), Tirupati Urban Development Authority (hereinafter called 'TUDA') is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for brevity) insofar as the same deals with the lands owned by the respective petitioners.3. All the petitioners are residents of Tirupati town. They own agricultural land in various survey numbers of Vedanthapuram village totalling an extent of the details of which are as under.Sl. No.WPNo.Sy.Nos.Extent (Acs. cts.)1.17076 of 2000196I2A, 196I2B and 196/201.472.17077 of 2000204/70.673.17078 of 2000202/3C2.S24.17108 of 2000196/2A0.305.17109 of 2000196/2A, 196/2C, 196/2E and 202/1 A3.006.17...
Arigela Laxmi and anr. Vs. Boodireddy Chandraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD530; 2003(1)ALT565
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The appellants herein are the defendants in OS No. 149 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, The respondents herein filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction claiming to be the owners and possessors of an extent of Ac.1.15 gts, and Ac.1.14 gts, in Sy.Nos. 95/A and 95/B respectively of Bommakal village.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that when they obtained certified copies of the Pahanis for obtaining a loan from the Co-operative Bank, they found that the Pahanis for the year 1980-81 to 1988-89, 1991-92 and 1992-93 recorded the name of the 1st defendant as the possessor, while the Pahani for the year 1989-90 the name of the 2nd defendant as the possessor. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to take steps to rectify the entries in the revenue records. The defendants refused and also denied the title of the plaintiffs. The defendants also came to the schedule property on 10-5-1994 and tried to interfere ...
T. Penchala Naidu Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP262; 2003(2)ALD782; 2003(4)ALT135
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated 22-2-2002 in R.P. No. 19 of 2000 and the consequential order of the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, the fourth respondent herein, dated 6-5-2002. He also seeks a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to permit him to continue to operate his stage carriage bus bearing No. AP-26-U-5387 under permit No. PSP/2/N/2000 on the town service route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem via Swamamukhi Bridge.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is a bus operator. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), the second respondent herein, seeking a permit on the town service route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapaleni via Swamamukhi Bridge. The same was rejected by the second respondent on 13-12-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ...
J. Vanamma Vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD892; 2003(2)ALT249
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nernur Village, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. On allegations that she has contravened the licence issued under A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 173 (hereinafter called, the Order), the petitioner's licence was cancelled by the appointingauthority, second respondent herein. Second respondent also imposed a fine of Rs. 44,805/ - purporting to be in terms of Clause 14-A of the Order. The petitioner's appeal to the Joint Collector under Clause-17 of the Order and subsequent revision under Clause-18 of the Order to the District Collector were also dismissed. Hence, the writ petition.2. The learned Counsel' for the petitioner Sri K. Raji Reddy raised only one contention. He submits that imposing fine of Rs. 44,805/- is illegal. According to the learned Counsel Clause 14-A of the Order which was introduced by amendment vide G.O. Ms. No. 232, dated 12.3.1996 when the stock is diver...
Papatla John Veeranna Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)470; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)474; 2003CriLJ2204
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No. 62 of 1998 and the same was tried as S.C. No. 36 of 2000. On the basis of complaint submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent investigation, charges were framed under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 506 of IPC., against the accused. 2. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and accordingly, through its judgment dated 21.6.2002 acquitted the sole accused-the 2nd respondent herein of the charges framed against him. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the trial Court.3. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, s...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, K.G. Project Vs. N. Satyanara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD711; (2003)IIILLJ289AP
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions filed by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Krishna Godavari Project, writs of prohibition are sought against the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court from proceeding with the adjudication of the cases filed by the respective contract labour arrayed as respondent No. 1 in each of the writ petitions.2. Since the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of through this common judgment.3. It is averred in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the petitioner is a Central Government Company engaged in the activities of exploration and exploitation of Oil and Natural Gas and that it has its offices and establishment in the Krishna Godavari Basin, with headquarters at Rajahmundry.4. It is their contention that the work involved in the project is not confined to any particular place and that it keeps on changing depending on the availability of Hydro Carbons ...
M. Veeraiah Chowdary Vs. the State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)421; 2003CriLJ1896
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition on important question of law viz., whether it is competent for the State Government to withdraw or rescind a notification issued by it according permission under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under :--The petitioner is a partner in M/s. Teja Wines, a firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, having its object to do business in Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Its place of business is Ongole in Prakasam district. The firm was issued license by the competent authority under A.P. Excise Act on 31-3-1998.3. The 5th respondent was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq Police Station in August, 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has been constantly demanding bribe from the petitioner and used to destroy the bottles in the shops whenever his demands were not complied with. The petitioner states that he has been runnin...
Sivaramakrishna Traders Vs. Kamal Traders
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD375; 2003(2)ALT626
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel for appellant Sri M.S. Ramchander Rao and the Counsel for respondent Sri T.S. Anand.2. The main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the Counsel in view of the fact that the application for temporary injunction was opposed by the respondent/ defendant by lodging a caveat and entering appearance. Both the Counsel had addressed elaborate arguments putting forth their respective contentions.3. The dispute is in relation to a trade mark 'Double Kamal' [Double Lotus]. The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in IA No. 283/ 2002 in OS No. 11/2002 on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry is the appellant and the respondent/defendant in the said application is the respondent in the present Appeal. The appellant filed OS No. 11/2002 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the plaintiffs...
M. Chella Rao Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD538
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M.S.N. Prasad, Counsel representing the petitioner and Ms. Jhansi, Counsel representing Sri B. Adinarayan Rao, Counsel for respondents.2. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'Code' in short. The relief prayed for in the petition is to withdraw the Appeal, OA No. 67/2002 from the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Vijayawada and transfer the same to the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad or to any other Tribunal having jurisdiction for disposal of the same and pass such other suitable orders.3. The facts in nut-shell are as follows:4. It is stated that the petitioner is working as Branch Manager of Krishan District Co-operative Central Bank, Chinnapuram Branch and the 1st respondent passed an order under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act', dated 28-7-1999, vide Rc.No. 3248/94 G, against him ...
Mohd. Miskinavelli and ors. Vs. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD541; 2003(2)ALT369
C.Y. Somayajulu, J 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that the action of the respondent in demolishing the huts situated at Murlidhar Street, Bowdara Raod, Visakhapatnam is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case, in brief, of the petitioners is that they erected huts in Murlidhar Street, Visakhapatnam about 35 years back and are doing business therein by paying taxes to the respondent Corporation and when the respondent Corporation tried to demolish the structures without notice they filed O.S.No. 854 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which, after contest, was decreed on 7.1,1999 and that decree has become final and in spite of that decree the respondent is threatening to evict the petitioners. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 2.1.2003 before my learned brother the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation want...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »