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.
P. Prakash, E.C.i.L. Vs. Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., Mula-al ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT704
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet in proceedings No. ECIL/SPD/31 dated 06/08-7-1998 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Section 5 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for brevity the Act) and Rule 9 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1998 (for brevity the Rules) and to consequently set aside the charge-sheet dated 06/08-7-1998.2. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and throughout his career he was recognized as a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. In the year 1968 he was issued with a Social Status Certificate by the then District Social Welfare Officer, Hyderabad District, who is c...
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Vs. Mani Oommen and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT437
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Rama Rao Ghanta, learned Standing Counsel representing the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Sri Jayasurya, counsel representing the respondents.2. The matter came up for admission and at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel the main appeal itself is taken up for hearing for final disposal.3. The present civil miscellaneous second appeal is filed under Section 287 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) against an order passed in M.A. No. 89 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The impugned judgment, as against which the present civil miscellaneous second appeal is filed, reads as hereunder:'Heard the Counsel. Perused the Records. In the circumstances as it is first assessment, the MRV @ Rs. 3/- per sft., is justified and reasonable. It is new construction in Himayath Nagar area. The MCH ...
Naga Chengal Reddy Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD509; 2003(6)ALT269
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A short but interesting question as to the right of a licensee under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') and the Andhra Pradesh (Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') to claim refund of proportionate licence fee and the deposit made by him in the event of the licensing authority not renewing the licence due to change in the excise policy by the Government falls for consideration in this Writ Petition.2. The facts are not much in dispute. As culled out from the affidavit and the counter-affidavit, in brief, the facts are as follows. The petitioner was granted a licencein Form IL 24 of the Rules on 30-3-1998 for the Excise Year 1998-99. With the said licence, he commenced business in the name and style of M/s. Sree Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines at premises No. 4/148, RTC Bus Stand, Rajampet, Cuddaph District. On 31-3-1998 another Form IL 24 licence was issued to him for the Excise Year 1998-99 with which he commence...
Dammu Sreenu and anr. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)664; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)568; 2003CriLJ2185
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This is a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., filed by the accused in SC No. 451/96 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali. The accused were tried for offence under Section 306 of IPC.2. The relevant facts presented by the prosecution are as under :A2 is the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2. On the night of 31-12-1995, A2 went out of her house and returned only on the next day. The deceased questioned about her behaviour and a quarrel ensued. A2 is , no other than the daughter of his sister. He called for the father of A2 and asked him to take her away. Accordingly, she was taken away by her father. After that, A1 came to the house of the deceased. When he was questioned by the inmates of the house, he stated that he had relationship with A2 and as long as the deceased does not object, he will keep coming. After taking A2 to his house, her father left her at the house of her brother, PW5 at Tsundu...
Shaik Mahaboob Bee Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)414; 2003CriLJ2199; II(2003)DMC91
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent. She filed M.C. No. 46/2000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad. Before the Family Court, the respondent filed a memo offering to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. Taking into the same on record, the family Court through its order dated 7.7.2000 directed the 2nd respondent to pay the maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. with effect from July, 2000.2. When the 2nd respondent did not comply with the order of the Family Court, the petitioner filed M.P. No. 3/2001 under sub-section 3 of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad. After receipt of the notice, the 2nd respondent took the plea that he had divorced the petitioner and as such he is not under obligation to pay the maintenance. The e...
Md. SharieffuddIn and anr. Vs. Syed Anwar MohiddIn and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT559
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents/defendants. The learned counsel had pointed out that an order of Status quo was ordered without recording reasons. The learned counsel with all vehemence had submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge at Medak noticing that a caveat had been lodged by one defendant against other defendant, had erred in making an order of Status quo, without ordering notice. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on C. SEETHAIAH v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, : AIR1983AP443 . The learned counsel for the appellants while elaborating the submissions had pointed out that it is mandatory to record reasons while granting an ex-parte order of Status quo. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on M/S. PARO FOOD PRODUCTS v. THE HYDERABAD METROPLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, : 1994(1)ALT172 , BACHARAJ SINGHVI v. HASTIMAL KOTHARI, 1980(2) ALT 472 and SYED SHAMEER MAKANDAR AND OTHERS v....
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Lokula Ramesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)605; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)188; II(2003)DMC704
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in S.C. No. 612 of 1996 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. As the deceased by name Bhoodevi committed suicide within seven months of her marriage and also in view of the letters addressed by her, which were marked as Exs. P2, P3, P13, P14 and P16, the Police, in their usual haste, filed the charge sheet against the respondents herein for the alleged offence under Section 304-B IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, who tried the respondents herein in S.C. No. 612 of 1996 for the said offence acquitted them. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the deceased Bhoodevi and the 1st respondent/accused was performed on 5.3.1995 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry on...
D. Padmavati and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD253; 2003(2)ALT566
Motilal B. Naik, ACJ 1. In all these writ petitions, the controversy is with regard to the prescription of maximum age limit as 32 years as on 1.7.2001 insofar as the Open Category candidates are concerned for appointment to the posts of Junior Civil Judges in the A.P. State Judicial Services. Since common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are disposed of by the following common order;2. For better appreciation of the issues raised in these writ petitions, the facts narrated in W.P. No. 3573 of 2002 are recorded hereunder.3. It is the case of Petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 3573 of 2002 that they have enrolled as Advocates on the rolls of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 16.6.1993; 1.3.1995 and 15.6.1994 respectively and since then practising in various Civil and Criminal Courts in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. According to them, they have put in more than three years of standing at the Bar having acquired adequate and necessary training and skill, desir...
E. Mallaiah Vs. the State of A.P., (Through Proh. and Excise Inspector ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)726; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)366
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the Excise Police visited the licensed toddy shop of the petitioner. They suspected adulteration of toddy and therefore, they drew some samples and sent them to the concerned authority for analysis. The analyst after analysis gave opinion that the toddy sample contained Diazepam and therefore it was adulterated. The violations against the present petitioner are under Rules 24 and 34 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Conditions ) Rules 1969, and under Section 36 read with Section 81(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. 2. Rule 24 of the above said Rules deals with drawal of samples while Rule 34 deals with the power of Excise Officials to enter and inspect any shop and test arrack or toddy therein. There is no Section 81(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act. The Act contains only 73 Sections in all. 3. Section 36 of the Excise Act deals with penalty for misconduct of licensees etc. The charge levelled against the pe...
Pioneer Builders Vs. Superintending Engineer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD756; 2003(2)ALT234
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. The writ petitioner seeks a declaration that the Communication in proceedings No.SE/TGP/CDP/DB/D3/W/ 120/198-M dated 8.3.2001 issued by the 1st respondent- Superintendent Engineer (TeluguGanga Project) Circle, Cuddapah, as illegal and arbitrary.2. The factual matrix is that the petitioner is the registered contractor, executing civil works. He undertook work relating to 'formation of earthen bund' for a certain extent by virtue of the agreement No. 1/88-89. The petitioner was the lowest tenderer. The due date for the completion of contract work was fixed as 4.9.1990. It appears that even at the threshold of commencement of work in the year 1989, the design of the bund was changed by the authorities resulting in substantial alteration of the accepted work. However, the respondents extended the period of the contract from time to time even without imposing any penalty, since the non-completion of work was admittedly not attributable to the petitioner. However, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »