Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. R.V. Ramana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD175; 2003(6)ALT786; (2004)ILLJ993AP
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 8-4-2002, in W.P. No. 25978/1998 of a learned Single Judge, whereby the award, dated 23-4-1993, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D. No. 158/1990, was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for the purpose of affording an opportunity to both parties to let in evidence, inasmuch as the enquiry was vitiated, with a direction to the Labour Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law within a period of three months.2. The factual matrix of the case is in a narrow compass and almost all the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, a brief resume of the facts is delineated as follows, and the parties are referred to in this appeal as they are arrayed in the writ petition. Petitioner was working as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kakinada. On 31-3-1992 while he was discharging his duties on Kotur-Kakinada route, he was found to have committed cer...
B. Venkateshwarlu and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD636; 2004(1)ALT638
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The subject-matter of both the writ petitions is same. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are either retired Government employees or legal heirs of the deceased Government employees. The Government constructed staff quarters in the year 1969 at Khammam to accommodate the employees of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (for short 'the Project'). At the relevant point of time, the construction of the Project was in progress. With the completion of the Project, several quarters became surplus. Employees of the other departments were also allotted such quarters. The quarters are said to have become old and are in a dilapidated condition. Pursuant to the policy evolved by the Government to allot surplus land or quarters belonging to the Project to other needy departments or to dispose of the same in public auction, steps were taken to evict the petitioners from the quarters in their occupation.3. The petiti...
Sk. Moulana Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD445; 2004(1)ALT520
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent issued in office order No. F2/469(1)/98-Bswd, dated 17.4.1998 by which the petitioner, who was ex-driver of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Banswada Depot, Nizamabad District, was forced to retire from service on the ground of medical invalidation without providing alternate employment or salary from 3.7.1996 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Regulations.2. According to the case of the petitioner, he joined the service in APSRTC on 1.10.1983 and while he was working as Driver in Banswada Depot on 2.7.1996 he commenced his duty at 1-30 p.m., and completed on the next day i.e., 3.7.1996 at 11.30 a.m. On account of the Naxal bund, he was forced to stay at Banswada on 3.7.1996 and immediately thereafter, on information that his father was serious and was admitted in hospital at Bodhan, he left Banswada by RTC Bus No. AEZ-4900. Due to ...
Madigiri Kiran Kumar Vs. Swarnagiri Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP104
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant in I.A. 313 of 2002 in O.S. No. 168 of 2001, against the order, dated, 20-7-2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.2. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 168 of 2001 for recovery of money basing on a promissory note and also filed I.A. 829 of 2001 under Order 38 Rule 5 of C. P. C., for attachment of the schedule property before judgment. The lower Court passed a conditional order on 5-9-2001 and made the said order absolute on 7-9-2001. Afterwards the respondent-defendant filed I.A. 313 of 2002 to raise the attachment by offering bank security for the suit amount. The lower Court dismissed the said application as devoid of merits by observing that the defendant did not furnish security as directed by the Court. The defendant being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court preferred this revision, questioning its validity and legality. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money. The...
Mannam Ramasubbaiah @ Ramasubba Reddy Vs. Mannam Jayaramaiah @ Jayaram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD838
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel on record.2. The learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff submitted that Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'Code' in short, had been omitted by Act 46 of 1999, made effective from 1-7-2002 and on this ground alone the application should have been dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel and instead the application for reception of documents was allowed without recording any reasons and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained.3. The present Revision is preferred as against an order made in I.A.No.430/2003 in O.S.No.274/98 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. Though the application was opposed by filing a counter in detail, the said application was allowed on the ground that there is no hard and fast rule for not admitting documents before adducing the evidence of the party. The respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition/petitioner in I.A.No.43...
Singilidevi Veera Venkata Ananthalakshmi and anr. Vs. Bhamidipati Seet ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD51
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs as against an order dated 30-3-1998 made in I.A. No. 96 of 1998 in O.S. No. 38 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application in I.A. No. 96 of 1998 in O.S. No. 38 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, praying the Court to permit them to amend the plaint and the substance of the amendment was that the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government during the pendency of the suit and that OP No. 65 of 1988 is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram and that the said OP was registered on a reference made to the same Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the compensation amount was deposited in the said Court and hence the amendment is prayed for paying the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition to the relief of specific performance prayed for in t...
P. Monish Gajapathi Raju and ors. Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Ref ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD835
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K.Sai Ram Murthy, Counsel representing the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Land Ceiling, the Counsel representing the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioners had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No.1177/2003 in L.R.A.No.1/2003 made on 30-6-2003 on the file of District Judge, Vizianagaram.3. The 2nd petitioner herein Smt.P.Madhuri Gajapathi Raju, had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Rule 15(4) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules'. It is stated by the deponent that she is the 2nd appellant in the Appeal and appellants 1 and 3 are her sons and the 2nd respondent is her daughter. It is also stated that her late husband was the principal land holder of Vizianagaram estate and he was entitled to 4/5th share in all patta lands and 1/5th share belonging to...
Adapaka Sriramulu and ors. Vs. Adapaka Bapi Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD865
B.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 82 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Rajam. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court, Rajam, in A.S. No. 10 of 1994 dated 15.11.1995, wherein the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed as prayed for, the appellants preferred this second appeal.2. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:1. declaration of title insofar as it affected by the sham and bogus registered sale deed dated 13-5-1982 executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the other defendants in respect of half portion of the plaint schedule mentioned house and appurtenant site 2. restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned house in any manner whatsoever by the grant of consequential relief of permanent in...
Tarnaka Huda Complex Lessees Welfare Association Vs. Principal Secreta ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT56
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The learned single Judge having noticed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Association who are admittedly the tenants of HUDA complex, came to the right conclusion that the members of the Association have no right to compel the HUDA to sell their property to the members of the appellant Association. The learned Judge held that it is settled law that unless the appellant Association shows some enforceable right, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.2. It is needless to express any opinion whatsoever as to how and in what circumstances HUDA sold away some portion of the land, having taken the same from the Osmania University, for construction of Aradhana cinema theatre and a bar and restaurant. The same is not challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, this court cannot make any enquiry into the same.3. Be it as it may, the appellant Association cannot insist the owner of the complex to sell the same to the membe...
Medasani Venkateswara Rao Vs. Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT1
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the action of the respondent Corporation in appointing respondents 4 to 8 as its Standing Counsel through its resolution dated 15-10-2001 and 16-10-2001. The jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada to appoint the standing counsel in terms of Section 674 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, is not in dispute before us.2. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that even if the Municipal Corporation had the power to make such appointment, the same should be in conformity with the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 187 dated 6-12-2000 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. We are required to notice that the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms. No. 187 dt. 6-12-2000 are in the nature of executive instructions and they cannot supersede the statutory provisions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›