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.
P. Mohanreddy Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN339(AP)
Devinder Gupta, C.J.Petitioners in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22-11-1999 are seeking to have the sale by public auction, held on 30-12-1998 with respect to land situated in Survey Nos. 32/1, 32/2, 32/3, 33/1, 92 and 93 of Jeedimetla village and Pet Basheerabad village (hereinafter referred to as the land in question) by the 3rd respondent and the consequential confirmation made on 27-1-1999, set aside as illegal, violative of provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), without authority of law and against the directions of this court.2. In order to understand the points urged and raised before us, it will be necessary to mention the background facts in which the petitioner filed the writ petition and the other facts and circumstances which were brought to our notice : The petitioners allege that on 10-10-1991 respondent No. 5 Society through i...
Pragna Bharati Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Health and Family ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT355
ORDERDevinder Gupta, C.J. 1. We have persued the affidavit of Sri DP. Sharma, Assistant Drug Controller posted at Sub-Zonal office, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in response to the notice issued by us in the writ petition. Petitioner claiming to be an Organizing Secretary of Pragna Bharathi, a non-governmental organization has in this petition, filed as PIL sought direction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 declaring their action in permitting fairness products to be marketed as cosmetics without bringing them within the purview of drugs to be violative of Rule 106 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with Schedule J and Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Petitioner's claim is that such fairness products manufactured by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 deserve to be classified as 'drugs' and not as cosmetics' under the relevant provisions of the Act. 'Cosmetic' ...
Dunnala Venkateswara Vara Prasad Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD122
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of Ac. Order 29 cents of land in Sy.No. 382/10 of Amalapuram Town and Mandal, East Godavari District. The same is sought to be acquired. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued on 9-5-2003, followed by a declaration under Section 6. The petitioner challenges the same.2. The petitioner contends that on the southern side of his land, a Community Hall is being constructed by the association of a community in the town. The said association is said to have approached the petitioner for transfer of his land for the purpose of parking area, at a throw away price, and when he refused to succumb to their demand, they have invoked the Government machinery, for acquisition of the said land. The petitioner alleges that there is no public purpose involved in the matter and the acquisition is for the benefit of private agencies. The competence of the District Collector, the 2nd respondent,...
Bhagat Ram Vs. Muthawalli, Dargah Hazrat Shaik-ji-hali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD574
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 136 of 1999 dated 29th November 2002.2. The respondent is a Wakf registered under the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 and it is represented by its Mutawalli. The respondent filed the above suit for eviction of the revision petitioner and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits with interest and costs. The Wakf Tribunal, after conducting a full-fledged trial, decreed the suit with costs directing the revision petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within one month from the date of judgment. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-towards the mesne profits from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of delivery of possession. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal dated 29.10.2002 preferred this revision challenging its validity and legality.3. ...
Bank of India Vs. U.A.N. Raju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD577
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Question of law referred to Division Bench by learned Single Judge while hearing revision petition is as to whether a Court, which lacks jurisdiction to try a case, territorial or otherwise, can assume jurisdiction on concession of parties or on submission to the Court's jurisdiction by defendant.2. Facts in brief are that the second respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages against the Petitioner-Bank at Visakhapatnam stating in the plaint that the Court at Visakhapatnam has jurisdiction to entertain and try suit since the cause of action had arisen in Visakhapatnam. Petitioner (second defendant in the suit) filed written statement and an objection was taken that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no transaction took place at Visakhapatnam. Thus, while filing written statement the petitioner did question the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit. Issues were framed but it appears that no issue w...
G. Jayachandra Naidu Vs. G. Lokamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)60; 2004CriLJ1615
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 6-8-2003 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 585 of 2003 in Crime No. 21/2002 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed Under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.2. R-1 herein filed a complaint against the petitioner and R-2 to R-7 before IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor on 23-10-2002 alleging inter alia that the petitioner in collusion with R-2 to R-8 fabricated a document alleged to be executed by her husband Munuswamy Naidu on 16-8-99 in respect of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AEE 122Q/ABC 4107 and filed a suit in O.S. 214 of 2002 and made unsuccessful attempts to obtain interim orders by filing I.A. 807/2002. It is further alleged that R-2 to R-4 namely E. Subramanyam Naidu, E. Papamma, E. Mohan Naidu who took the tractor-trailer on lease in the year 2000 and they neither paid the lease ...
Vemi Reddy Jkota Reddy Vs. Vemi Reddy Prabhakar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD627
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant. The suit is filed for specific performance.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 35 of 1999 on the file of the District Judge, Nellore, for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11-2-1999, executed by the defendant, who is no other than the brother of the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiff and also to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.4. The suit was filed in November 1999. The defendant filed his Written Statement and in Para-19 of the Written Statement it is stated that the agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 is not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp.5. The Court below framed the issues on 19-1-2000 wherein the relevant issues are issue Nos.1 and 3. Issue No. 1 is, 'whether the alleged agreem...
Superintending Engineer, Srbc and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Constructions Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD847; 2003(6)ALT707
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2002 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed in Arbitration Application No. 81 of 2002 appointing a retired Judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator. The said arbitration application has been filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') read with the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996 of A.P High Court praying to appoint a sole Arbitrator for getting the disputes resolved between the parties as to the fixation of the rate by the Technical Expert at Rs. 261.43 and for passing an award by such sole Arbitrator. The learned Chief Justice allowed the application and accordingly appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator.2. In order to consider the issue as to whether the impugned order appointing the sole Arbitrator suffers from any error apparent on the face of...
Sabavat Rukman Naik Vs. Government of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD49; 2004(2)ALT21
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner invokes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a limited prayer directing the Government of A.P. in Municipal Administration Department to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 679 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He filed the said revision petition on 9.9.2003 against the proceedings of the Commissioner of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation dated 20.3.1985 approving the layout of land in Survey No. 102/3 of Hakeempet village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District in favour of third parties. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Plot No. 77/19 of Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and that the said plot is situated in Survey No. 102/3 of Hakeempet Village. He alleges that in Layout No. 153/79, the petitioner's plot was also shown as being in Survey No. 102/3, which is incorrect. As his attempts to get layout corrected failed, he approached Governm...
Talla Palli Kasi Visalakshmi Vs. Tallapalli Venkata Vijayalakshmi and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP160; 2004(1)ALD569
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This judgment according to law arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the sole appellant, against respondents-1 and 2, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 questioning the, validity and legality of certain parts of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra.2. Orders dated 5.6.2000, of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, (Enquiry Court) made in S.O.P. No. 369 of 1995 of its file and the Decree of even date that followed the same therein.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant and the learned Counsel for contesting Respondent No. 1.5. Sole appellant in this C.M.A. correspondents to 1st petitioner in the said O.P.369 of 1995, of the file of the said Enquiry Court. R-1 herein correspondents to sole respondent in the said O.P.R-2 herein corresponds to co-petitioner, with the 1st petitioner in the O.P.6. The deceased cover by S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »