Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Registrar, Office o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD115
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. We have elaborately heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri N.Subba Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Sri M. V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Sri Vilas V. Afzalpurkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.2. The second respondent-Associated Engineering Enterprises filed a complaint against the petitioners hereinbefore the Upa-Lokayukta complaining that they, without any justification whatsoever, denied the payments that were legitimately due to it for the work done by it relating to widening of bridge near Fever Hospital. It was urged that there is an abnormal delay in settlement of claims and that there was balance of Rs. 14.50 lakhs due to the second respondent-firm. The second respondent-firm claimed various amounts under various heads and sought for a direction from Upa-Lokayukta as against the petitioners herein to pay the amounts.3. The Upa-Lokayukta having received the sa...
Rauf Ahmed Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Mch and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD77
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') were issued for the purpose of acquiring an extent of Ac.1-18 guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81 of Fatehnagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims to be one of the partners of Friend Hills Company. The said firm was notified as one of the owners/occupiers of the land notified for acquisition. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 4-4-2002. The petitioner claims that he was not in station and since the acquisition was by invoking urgency clause, he did not respond to the same. The award was passed by the 1st respondent on 17-8-2002. Since there were rival claims as to the entitlement to receive the compensation for the acquired land, the 1st respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 18 as well as 30 of the Act.2. The petitioner came to know about the matter only after the award was passed and th...
Botsa Appala Narasayya Vs. Smt. Raghunanda Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP82
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Medamalli Balaji and Sri G. Ramgopal, the learned counsel representing the respective parties.2. The civil revision petition is filed as against an order dated 1-8-2003 made in I.A. No. 643 of 2003 in Election O.P. No. 65 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.3. The revision petitioner herein filed an application before the Court below under Order 18, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling of RW2 for further cross-examination. The gist of the affidavit filed in support of the application is that RW2 was examined on 17-4-2003 and the evidence was closed. Then the matter was posted for arguments but due to inadvertent mistake on his part, he could not instruct his counsel properly on the date of examination of RW2 and hence he wants to cross-examine RW2 further. Counters in detail were filed and the said application was opposed.4. Sri Balaji, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had ...
N. Janardhan Rao Vs. Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank Personnel ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT23a
ORDERDevinder Gupta, C.J.1. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of dismissal of the appellant's writ petition in which the appellant, had challenged the order of transfer effected to Proddatur in Cuddapah District. The appellant's earlier writ petition challenging the transfer order was dismissed though liberty was reserved to the appellant to submit a representation to the respondent Bank. After dismissal of the writ petition he made a representation and the same has also been rejected and the order of transfer has been reiterated. We do not find ground to interfere with such administrative orders in exercise of Writ jurisdiction. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed....
Eswara Prasad Suryadevara Vs. Board of Intermediate Education of A.P., ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT721
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.Introduction:1. Intermediate course or 10+2 course is Andhra Pradesh is regulated by the Board of Intermediate Education (for short 'the Board') which is a statutory body constituted under the A.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 ('the Act'). It has been empowered to make regulations inter alia to regulated the grant of permission for establishment of colleges of Intermediate Education popularly known as Junior Colleges, prescribe course of study for Intermediate, standards of education, qualifications for the teaching staff, modalities to be adopted for appointment of such staff and conduct of I year as well as II year Intermediate examinations. The Board the first respondent in exercise of its power conferred under the Act formulated detailed rules and regulations for the conduct of Intermediate Examinations. The Board has also made validation rules or eligibility rules for I year Intermediate Public Examination (IPC) as well as II year IPE. In this case, an impor...
Surya Mineral Waters Vs. Commissioner of Industries and Chairman, Stat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: [2005]139STC348(AP)
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. A typical case of bureaucratic hangover resulting in waste of public time and energy is noticed in all the orders impugned in these writ petitions, which reflect total disregard to the directives issued by this Court. Had the respondents spent some time to understand the various process involved, on the basis of the material placed, in the making of packaged drinking water (otherwise known as mineral water) and given a finding as to whether the petitioners are entitled to tax concession as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department dated May 20, 1996, so much of public time and energy could have been saved. On the contrary, the respondents chose to adopt a slip shot method and rendered decision declaring that the petitioner-units are not eligible for sales tax concession as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996, which action left the issue undecided even after the matter was remitted to the respondents twice by this Court fo...
Jubilee Hills Labour Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD790; 2004(1)ALT321
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The relief claimed in both the writ petitions is similar in nature. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. W.P. No. 15652 of 2002 is filed by Jubilee Hills Labour Welfare Association, Hyderabad, and its 33 Members. The petitioners contend that the Members, who are mostly from weaker sections, have been undertaking small business activities on the road margins of Road No. 1, Jubilee Hills, for the past 15 years and recently they were shifted by the Municipal Authorities to a place nearby Jubilee Hills Park. It is stated that they are doing their business availing the benefit under the Self Employment Schemes sponsored by the Government through the agencies, such as, Setwin, Lidcap, etc. They complain that in the name of beautification of the city, widening of the roads, etc., they are sought to be evicted from the existing places of business. It is contended that they have been extended the electricity supply, telephone connections and are a...
Kalyan Chemicals Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD726; 2004(1)ALT264
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. Thepetitioner herein invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the amendment of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations Rules, 1971 as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 147, dated 16-3-1998 providing the levy of 'Administrative Fee' at the rate of Rs. 0.50 paise per bulk litre or such other rate as may be fixed by the Government from time to time on the quantity obtained by the licencee from a distillery is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable.2. In order to appreciate as to whether Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules') suffers from the vice of any unconstitutionality, we may require to notice a few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition:The petitioner has been manufacturing Ethyl Acetate. The basic raw material required for the purpo...
Ratan Singh Chowdhury Vs. Debts Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD71; II(2004)BC115
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. We have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 8. We have also perused the notice of demand issued by the first respondent-Debts Recovery Officer as against the petitioner. Various contentions have been raised in the writ petition by the petitioner challenging the demand notice issued by the first respondent-Debts Recovery Officer.2. After making submissions for some considerable length of time, Sri Milind G Gokhale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made an alternative submission that in case the submissions made by him are not acceptable to the Court, leave may be granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal.3. The short question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the impugned notice of demand issued by the first respondent-Debts Recovery Officer suffers from any jurisdictional errors so as to be interdicted by this Court i...
P. Ravinder Vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas275(AP); (2004)4CompLJ201(AP); [2004]49SCL43(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court. When the matter was argued before the Division Bench it was contended that by-law 5(a) of National Stock Exchange Ltd., was ultra vires. It was also specifically pleaded in Writ petition No. 25806/2000 that by-law 5(a) was ultra vires. There was an earlier judgment with respect to vires of bylaw 5(a) of National Stock Exchange Ltd., therefore it was thought necessary to refer the matter to Full Bench.2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in one of the Writ petitions stated that he is giving up challenge to by-law 5(a), therefore, we are not going into the question of legality or vires of by-law 5(a) of National Stock Exchange Ltd.3. The reference was also made because it was thought by the Division Bench that annulment of transactions has been ordered by the respondents for the first time in the country and no precedents are available. In this background the reference was heard. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »