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.
T. Chandrasekhar Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD578; 2004(4)ALT553
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The petitioners laid the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled for revised pension at Rs. 4,716/- as drawn by the Members of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) and Special Court under Electricity Act and also Dearness Relief with effect from 13.2.1996 as revised from time to time with consequential benefits.2. The petitioners worked as Judicial as well as Revenue Members of the Special Court constituted under the provisions of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and they worked for various spells. 4th petitioner is presently working as Judicial Member of Special Tribunal. The conditions of service are prescribed by the Rules called 'Conditions of Service Rules for the Chairman and Members of the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Special Court Chairman and Members (Conditions and Services) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules'). The said rules were framed under Section 16(1) of the Act and notified i...
Mummidi Udaya Bhaskar Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)891; I(2004)DMC524
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374(3), Cr.P.C. by accused (A-1) M. Udaya Bhaskar who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years in S.C.No. 293 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:The appellant/A-1 got married to Mummidi Kasiratnam (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) five years prior to the date of the occurrence, P.W. 1 K. Satyanarayana is father, P.W. 2 K. Venkateswar Rao is brother and P.W. 3 K. Raghavulu is mother of the deceased. P.W. 4 K.Gouri is the daughter-in-law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. P.W. 1 gave Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry and Rs. 350/- towards adapaduchulanchanan at the time of the marriage of the deceased with the appellant/ A-1. He also presented six sovereigns of gold to the deceased. Acquitted accused (A-2) is the mother of the appellant/A-1. The deceased lived in her nuptial home for ...
K.Y. Surya Prakash and anr. Vs. L.K. Agencies Rep. by Its Partner and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)961; III(2004)BC22
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed C.C. No. 342 of 2002 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) alleging that petitioners and third respondent, as partners of the second respondent firm, obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and that the cheque issued by the third respondent on behalf of second respondent firm towards repayment of the debt due to it was dishonoured and that petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 in spite of statutory notice of demand for payment after dishonour failed to pay the amount covered by dishonoured cheque. This petition is filed to quash the said complaint against the petitioners.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that since the petitioners retired from the second respondent firm on 1.4.1999, i.e., even prior to the issuance of the dishonoured cheque by the third respondent on behalf of second respondent, they (petitioners) cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, more so becaus...
P. Raja Lingam Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD681; 2004(1)ALT460
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the 1966 Act') (the same provision is ipsiss ima verba as Section 87 in the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the 1987 Act') for a declaration that the property bearing Municipal No. 742/12 (Door No. 5-3-742) does not belong to Tulja Bhavani Temple and that the same is verified from the register of Endowments. The said application, being O.A. No. l of 1996, was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments on 26-4-2000.2. Sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the 1987 Act stipulates that any decision of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87(1) of the 1987 Act shall not take effect unless the same is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was sent to...
In Re: Jaquar Steels (P) Limited and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD111; 2004(1)ALT524; [2004]120CompCas120(AP); (2004)2CompLJ564(AP); [2004]50SCL87(AP)
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner in C.P. No. 99 of 2003 is the transferor company. The petitioner in C.P. No. 100 of 2003 is the transferee company. The above petitions are filed seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner in C.P. No. 99 of 2003 namely, the transferor company, was incorporated on 6-10-1986 as Private Limited Company with its registered office at Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 25,00,000/-divided into 2,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/-each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital of the company is Rs. 24,50,000/-divided into 2,45,000 equity shares of Rs. l0/- each. The main object of incorporating the said company as set out in the Memorandum of Association annexed to the petition, is to carry on business of manufacturers, processors, producers, buyers, sellers, traders, importers of all kinds of steel.3. The petitioner in C.P. No. 100 of 2003, namely th...
Jangili Nagaiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD587; 2004(2)ALT324
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notice dated 15-9-2003 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Be it noted that the impugned notice was issued in Form No. 1 under Rule 5(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 ('the Rules'). The petitioner was directed to handover possession of the land in D.No. 45 admeasuring Acs.7.36 cents duly cancelling the lease under Section 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ('the Act').2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is lessee of the land in question belonging to Sri Polerammna Silalu Swamy Temple, Gollapudi hereafter called 'the institution'. He claims that he paid the lease amount of Rs. 3,675/- and the lease is in force till March, 2004. He also alleges that he is a landless poor person not owning any other...
Madala Venkaiah (Died) by Lrs. Vs. K. Krishna Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD160
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The legal representatives of the unsuccessful tenant in both the Tribunals below had preferred the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed ATC No. 16 of 1993 on the file of Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal- cum-II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, under Section 13(a) of the A.P. (A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act in short) praying for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule land. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Tenancy Tribunal after recording the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and R.W.1 and R.W.2 and also marking Exs.A-1 and A-2 and Exs.B-1 to B-8, had ultimately arrived at a conclusion that there is no evidence that the petitioners in the said ATC required the land for personal cultivation and though there is a pleading, there is no evidence and hence, the said ground was not considered. But, however, the said Tribunal had recorded a finding th...
Prince Shahamat Ali Khan Vs. Sultan-ul-uloom Education Society and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD453; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)945; 2003(6)ALT307
1. The writ appeal arises out of the interlocutory order dated 17-9-2003 passed in WVMP No. 2870 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge making the interim stay granted on 22-8-2003 in WPMP No. 22079 of 2003 absolute. That during the course of hearing of the writ appeal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned Counsel including the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents requested the Court to take up the writ petition itself for hearing and disposal since the questions that fall for consideration in the writ appeal as well as the writ petition are one and the same. That at the request of all the parties represented by their Counsel, we have taken up the writ petition itself for final disposal.2. We shall refer the parties as arrayed in W.P.No. 17739 of 2003 for the sake of convenience. The petitioner Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society represented by its Honorary Secretary invoked the extraordinary jurisdic...
A.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and anr. Vs. K. Saraswathi Devi an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD48
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These two writ appeals and the writ petition may be disposed of by a common order since the question that falls for consideration is one and the same involving interpretation of G.O.Ms. No. 36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh deciding to dispense with the Scheme of compassionate appointments in the eleven State Public Enterprises.2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, out of which the two writ appeals arise, and directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner afresh for providing appointment on compassionate ground without reference to G.O. Ms. No. 36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001, on the ground that as on the date of application filed by her seeking appointment on compassionate grounds G.O. Ms. No. 36, dated 5-9-2001 was not in existence.3. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the first re...
Sri Raja Veligoti Venkata Sesha Varada Raja Gopalakrishna Yachendra Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP179; 2003(6)ALT369
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner herein invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 12-9-2000 passed by the first respondent-Union of India, Department of Mines represented by its Secretary.2. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Union of India') allowed the revision petition filed by the 4th respondent herein under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') and accordingly set aside the order passed by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'State Government') dated 29-7-1999 rejecting the renewal of mining lease application of the petitioner on the ground that the consent of the land owner was lacking at the time of renewal of mining lease. The impugned order passed by the Union of India is assailed on various g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »