Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Katika Ramesh Alias Madapuram Shankar Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)757; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)6; 2003CriLJ2880
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 8-7-2002 at about 4.00 a.m. near Yerriswamy Temple of Narasimhnapalli forest, Kanaganapalli Mandal, petitioner was found in possession of claymore mines. He made a confession that he belonged to CPI-ML Peoples War Group. Therefore, the Kanaganapalli police registered a case in Crime No. 31/2002 under Section 3(5) and 4(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') against the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on the same day and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, who remanded him to judicial custody and since then he has been under detention. The present petition is filed for ball.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since charge-sheet has not been filed within a period of 180 days, petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right, whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the bail petition contended that...
Cheedi Rama Rao Vs. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (A.P. Transc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALT267
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Impugning the proceedings dated 27-11-2001, issued by the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer, Assessments Circle, APEDCL, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.2. Having regard to the amendment made to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, by insertion of Section 49-C therein by the Indian Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000, providing for constitution of Special Tribunals for the speedy trial of the offences under the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 27-11-2001, passed by the 2nd respondent, is illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Special Tribunal alone is competent to determine the compensation payable by a consumer to the APTRANSCO for the power pilfered.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the APTRANSCO.4. Section 49-C, which was inserted in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 by reason of Indian Electricity (Andhra Prad...
Akula Srinivasa Rao and ors. Vs. G. Venkateswara Sarma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP407; 2003(4)ALD550
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order dt.21.6.2002 returning the petition under Order 21 Rule 86 C.P.C. filed by the revision-petitioners/Judgment-debtors to set aside the execution sale held by the Court below.2. The case of the petitioners is that their properties were brought to sale in the E.P. filed by the decree-holder in execution of decree obtained against them and that they do not know whether the bidder deposited 25% of the amount of the purchase money or not. On the date of auction and that they came to know that the auction purchaser has to pay the full bid amount into Court on or before 15th day from the sale of the property and that the auction purchaser in this case did not do so and so the sale is liable to be set aside under Order 21 Rule 86.3. The said petition was returned by the office with the following endorsement on 21.6.2001:The purchaser deposited Rs.13,76,593/- on 1.6.2002. Hence this petition not maintainable. May be returne...
K. Sambasiva Rao Vs. District Level Committee and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD454; 2003(3)ALT808
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the 3rd respondent in ROC No. 41637 2002/1 41637 2002/1 dated 1.2.2003 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 4-A(2) and (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder.2. The petitioner is the lessee in respect of Jayanthipuram/Ravirala Sand Reach. He was the highest bidder in the auction and was granted the lease for a period of two years commencing from 28.7.2001. The first year lease period expired on 28.7.2002. The petitioner states that due to his ill-health he could not pay the second year lease amount in time and that his application for extension of time has been considered by the 1st respondent-District Level Committee, Krishna District and in the meeting held on 25.10.2002 it was resolved to extend the lease period of the petitioner up to 28.7.2003 while condoning the delay in payment of the lease amount for the second...
A. Seshagiri Rao Vs. Commissioner of Civil Supplies (Appeals) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD487; 2003(3)ALT724
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. All these Writ Petitions are filed by the Rice Millers questioning different orders dated 31-1-1995 passed by the Joint Collector, Ongole confirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies (Appeals) and Ex-Officio Secretary of the Government, Food and Civil Supplies Department in different Government Orders dated 20-1-1996 and as the common question of fact and law is involved, they are disposed of by a common order.2. As the facts are similar in all the Writ Petitions, the facts in one case i.e., W.P.No. 9187/1996 are stated as follows:-It is stated that the petitioner is a licenced miller. Under the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Levy Order), every licenced miller shall sell to the Food Corporation of India 50% of the total quantity of the rice milled and the balance 50% can be sold by him both within and outside the State in accordance with the release certificate issued by the authority for the crop year 199...
Ch. Raji Reddy and ors. Vs. Apsrtc and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD96; 2003(4)ALT36
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Mr. M.V. Raja Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Harinath, learned standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for GAD for the 2nd respondent. The learned Additional Advocate-General Mr. D. Prakash Reddy assisted the Court at request.2. The petitioners, in substance, seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in not following the procedure while initiating recruitment to the posts of Conductors, Drivers and Shramiks (Cleaners); and not following the Presidential Order, 1974 (for short 'Order, 1974') or considering the rule of Reservation therein as between the locals and non-locals is illegal and arbitrary; and for a declaration that the notification of the respondent-Corporation dated 5-10-1999 published in the daily press is illegal and arbitrary.3. The petitioners are unemployed persons belonging to Nalgonda district, temporarily residing at Hyderabad. The 1st respondent-Corporation issued a notif...
T.S.R. Krishna Murthy Vs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD802
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a student of 3-year LL.B. Degree Course. He was admitted in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, the 1st respondent herein in the academic year 2000. He appeared for 1st and 2nd year examinations but still he has backlog subjects. When he was in 3rd year LLB Course, the Semester system was introduced in LL.B. The University, however, in accordance with the University Regulations, conducted 2001 main examinations and 2001 supplementary examinations. When the petitioner submitted application for 1st year examinations of supplementary in April/May 2003, the same was not accepted by the College. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct another supplementary examination.2. The Counsel for the petitioner did not place any Rules before this Court. Therefore, learned standing Counsel for the Osmania University was directed to produce the relevant Rules. Today the Rules and Regulations governing 3-Year Degree Cours...
V. Umamaheswara Rao Vs. Shaik HussaIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP59; 2004(4)ALD322; 2003(4)ALT476
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6005 of 2003 (hereinafter called first petitioner), who claims to be owner of certain agricultural land in R.S. No. 598 of Vuyyuru Village, Krishna District assails the order of second respondent dt. 27-3-2003. Be it noted, the second respondent passed the said order in an application filed by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6006 of 2003 (hereinafter called, second petitioner) also assails similar order of even date.2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The first respondent and thirty-four others purchased land in R.S. No. 598 of Vuyyuru Village from petitioners. As the Sub-Register refused to register sale deeds, first respondent filed two applications before second respondent under Section 73 of the Act against order of Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru, dated 14-2-1996 refusing to register a sale deed on the ground that execut...
Bandhakavi Seeta Mahalakshmi Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD506; 2003(3)ALT779
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of the land in R.S.No. 22/3, Sajjapuram Village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.2. Through their notification dated 25.2.1999 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), the respondents proposed to acquire Ac.0.43 cents of land belonging to the petitioner. Section 17(1) of the Act was invoked and advance possession thereof was taken. The notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 26.2.1999. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 24.3.1999 and notices in award enquiry were issued on 4.4.2000. The petitioner responded to the same and submitted her claim statement on 25.4.2000. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the possession of the land was taken way back in the year 1999, neither 80 per cent of the compensation as provided for under Section 17(3A) of the Act was paid, much less an award was passed.3. Mr. K.V. Satyanamyana, learned Counsel for the ...
Ch. Sri Rama Murthy Vs. Ch. Rajyalakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD563
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. One Sri Ch. Srirama Murthy filed the present transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' in short) praying for transfer of the cases, I.A. No. 1191 of 2001 in O.S.No. 1258 of 2001 for creating charge on house at Simhapuri, VSP, O.S.No. 1258 of 2001 for monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, O.P.No. 215 of 2001 for granting judicial separation in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and M.C.No. 51 of 2001 for monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/ - in the Court of Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry to the file of the V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (Family Court, Visakhapatnam District) for proper hearing and pass such other appropriate orders. All these disputes are between the husband, the petitioner in the transfer CMP and the wife, Ch. Rajyalakshmi the respondent in the transfer CMP. The peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »