Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Forest Range Officer, S.V. National Park Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD503; 2003(2)ALT704
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Forest Range Officer is aggrieved by the orders dated 4.7.1997 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1997 passed by the Court of District Judge, Cuddapah. Be it noted that the learned District Judge passed that order in exercise of the powers under Section 44 (2-E) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The facts are not in dispute. The lorry bearing No. AEE 6665 was seized on 8.12.1991 by forest officials. At the time of seizure, the lorry was allegedly carrying 2953 kgs of red sander logs without any permission or otherwise. At the relevant time, the third respondent was the owner of the lorry. Against the seizure, the third respondent filed a writ petition before this Court claiming release of the lorry pending further proceedings. This Court passed orders in W.P.No. 257 of 1992 on 13.1.1997 directing the release of the lorry subject to third respondent furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also giving an undertaking to the effect ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Takkeda Venkateswara Rao and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1503; 2003(2)ALD855; 2003(3)ALT65
ORDERP.S. Narayan, J. 1. The matter came up for admission before this Court and with theconsent of all the parties the main CMA itself is being disposed of.2. Heard Mrs. Bhaskara Laxmi, Counsel representing the appellant-third respondent, Sri Ravikumar Toleti, Counsel representing the respondents-claimants and Sri A. Rangacharyulu and Sri R. Venkataram, Counsel representing the other respondents.3. The short question raised in the present CMA is that under no fault liability where the accident occurred on 5-5-1993 prior to the Amending Act, the compensation amount to be granted is Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 25,000/- Except this question no other aspect had been canvassed before this Court by the respective Counsel representing the parties, Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal are the petitioners in MVOP No. 108 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman-cum-III Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and they filed the aforesaid OP for the claim of compensation of Rs. 2,0...
Manchukonda Srinivasam Vs. Vempolu Brahmananda Rao (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD300
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. When the case was taken up for hearing on 20-1-2003 and on 21-1-2003 there was no representation on behalf of the respondents.2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2000 passed in R.C.A.11/96 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 18-4-1996 passed in R.C.C.255/ 95 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam and consequently the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord for eviction of V. Brahmananda Rao, the tenant and father of respondents herein, from the building specified in the schedule appended to the eviction petition has ended in dismissal.3. The petitioner herein is the owner of the petition schedule premises. Machukonda Srinivas took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He has two sons and both of them ...
Oruganti Seshachala Venkateswarlu Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)433; 2003(2)ALT444; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)450; 2003CriLJ2234
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. APO 884. His vehicle was seized by S.I. of Police, Mettapally while transporting black jaggery and other prohibited items under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). On such seizure, a case was registered in Cr. No. 43/2002 under Section 34(E) of the Act and FIR was dispatched to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar on 6-7-2002, whereas seized property along with vehicle was transferred to the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Huzurnagar on 24-7-2002. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), but the same was dismissed by his order dt. 11-7-2002 holding as follows :'Police is not reported about the seizure of property as per Section 457(1) of Cr. P.C. Moreso, this is prematured stage for ordering disposal of the property. ....
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Takkeda Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC415
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The matter came up for admission before this Court and with consent of all the parties the main C.M.A. itself is being disposed of.2. Heard Mr. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, Counsel representing appellant-respondent No. 3, Mr. T. Ravikumar, Counsel representing the respondent-claimants and Mr. A. Rangacharyulu and Mr. R. Venkataram, Counsel representing the other respondents.3. The short question raised in the present C.M.A. is that under no fault liability where the accident occurred on 5th May, 1993 prior to the Amending Act, the compensation amount to be granted is Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 25,000/-? Except this question no other aspect had been canvassed before this Court by the respective Counsel representing the parties. Respondent Nos. I and 2 in the appeal are the petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 108 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman-cum-III Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and they filed the aforesaid O.P. for the claim of compensation of...
Vignana Educational Foundation Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD340; 2003(4)ALT499
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question as to the right of a private, professional, non-minority educational institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh to admit students in first year MBBS course by its own admission programme without being compelled to admit students from out of the merit list prepared by the State agency after conducting common entrance test. Needless to point out that the question assumes importance having regard to the landmark decision of Constitution Bench of eleven Judges of the Supreme Court of India in T.M.A.PAI Foundation v. State of Karnataka, : AIR2003SC355 , (hereinafter called, TMA Pai Foundation). The question also assumes importance because of peculiar and unique position of the State, having regard to special provisions in Article 371-D of the Constitution of India with respect of State of Andhra Pradesh.Background Facts :2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner is a registered educational trust. It iden...
C. Subhash Mudiraj Vs. Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-iii, En ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD750; 2003(4)ALT128
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a member of family that constructed the temple known as 'Sri Kattamaisamma Mahalakshmi Temple', Begumpet, Hyderabad. He claims that due to his efforts the temple acquired valuable properties and prominence. It was registered under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act). He filed an application being O.A. No. 16 of 1994 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, to declare him as member of the founder's family. After due enquiry, the said official by order dated 15.3.1995 recognised the petitioner as founder member of the temple. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-Ill, first respondent herein. The said revision being Revision Petition No.40 of 1997 was allowed by the first respondent by order dated 22.9.1997 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that as per the judg...
B. Muralidhar and anr. Vs. Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD736; 2003(4)ALT485
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the question raised is in relation to the validity of Clause (e) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 31 of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 ('the 1970 Rules').2. In W.P, No.11713 of 2000, Rule 31(4)(e) of the Rules is challenged directly. However, in W.P. Nos.8775 and 9772 of 2000, Part IV (e) of the notification issued on 1-5-2000 which is in pari materia with Rule 31(4)(e) of the Rules is in question.3. Before noticing the facts, it is necessary to point out the legal framework for allotment/grant of Form IL-24 licences under the 1970 Rules as well as A.P. Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993 and A.P. Excise (Lease of right to sell Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer in retail under IL-24 Licences) Rules, 1998 (hereafter called 'the 1998 Rules'). In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the procedure adopted forgrant of licence under the Rules or for ...
Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP275; 2003(2)ALD742
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It has its Registered Office at Calcutta and Branch Offices all over the country. It is engaged in manufacture and marketing of vacuum cleaners and electrical consumer goods. The company represented by its Branch Manager at Hyderabad filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of mandamus declaring that the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (Central Act No.60 of 1976) (hereinafter called the Act), and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called, the Rules) are not applicable to vacuum cleaners manufactured/marketed by the company.2. The circumstances leading to filing of the writ petition may be briefly noticed. The direct sales division of the petitioner deal in vacuum cleaners under trade mark 'Euroclean 2000'. The main unit and the accessories are purchased by the petitioner from various other manufacturers and they...
Sagar Cements Limited Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD904; 2003(2)ALT275
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. Heard both the sides.This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in granting 25% rebate on demand and energy charges subject to a maximum amount of rebate of Rs.30,00,000/- in the entire period of 3 years, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct therespondents to give 25% rebate on demand and energy charges for a period of three years with effect from 24.4.1993.2. The brief facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered company carrying on the business in manufacture of cement at Mathampally Village, Nalgonda District. At the relevant time, B.P.Ms.No.691 dated 10.8.1976 and B.P.Ms.No.152 dated 13.12.1978 were in vogue and according to which the respondent - Board granted rebate of 25% in demand and energy charges for H.T. and L.T. industries for a period of three years from the date of initial production. It is stated that under the above pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »