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.
Tippineni Ramesh Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD740
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch of Bhimavarappadu village in Nellore District. He assails the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo. No. 6497/Pts.ll/A3/2003-l, dated 28-3-2003 whereby and whereunder, while taking revision petition filed by the fourth respondent on its file and requesting the District Collector to submit a detailed report along with the connected record to the Government, the Government directed that the orders of the District Collector dated 16-2-2003 be kept in abeyance and the fourth respondent be reinstated as Sarpanch of the said village. Be it also noted that by order dated 16-2-2003, the District Collector, the second respondent herein, purporting to exercise powers under Section 249(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Panchayat Act' for brevity) suspended the fourth respondent as Sarpanch while authorising the petitioner herein to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Sarpanch.2. The fourth respondent was...
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Mohammed AzharuddIn and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD873
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the petitioner in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 28-3-2003 passed by the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 10 of 2001.2. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 10 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the BCCI, the first defendant therein, dated 5-12-2000 as null and void and for a further declaration that the appointment of the second defendant and the report drawn by him as null and void and contrary to rules and regulations of the BCCI and violative of principles of natural justice. Be it noted, proceedings dated 5-12-2000 was issued by the BCCI imposing a life ban on the first respondent herein on the allegations of match fixing, under-performance of the play...
K. Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD651; 2003(4)ALT724; 2003(3)ARBLR440(AP)
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The applicant seeks the appointment of a second arbitrator.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass: The applicant entered into a contract with the first respondent-State for execution of the, 'earthwork excavation and forming embankment from Km. 235.000 to Km. 236.000 of Kakatiya Canal of S.R.S.P.' under an agreement No. 29/83-84 dated 25.10.1983 for Rs. 1,39,69,934/-.3. During the course of execution of the work and after its completion certain disputes arose between the applicant and the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the applicant referred the disputes to the first respondent in his letter dated 12.10.1989. However, the first respondent rejected the said dispute under his letter dated 24.11.1989. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause by requesting the panel of arbitrators as envisaged in the agreement to enter upon the reference under his letter dated 4.12.1989. The applicant received a letter dated 30.12.1989 purportedly from the convenor wherein in...
In Re: Nebula Motors Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD327; [2003]45SCL143(AP)
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Roa, J.1. The petitioner-company seeks sanction of the scheme of amalgamation under Section 394, read with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for brevity).2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner-company is the transferor company. It was incorporated on 13-4-2000 in the name of Jasper Motors PCD (Hyd.) Limited. Subsequently the name was changed to Nebula Motors Limited. The Registered Office of the company is at Hyderabad. The authorised share capital of the petitioner-company as on 31-3-2002 was 80 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital by that date was 77,05,070 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The petitioner-company is a 100 per cent subsidiary of the Concorde Motors Limited transferee-company herein. The object for which it was incorporated is to buy, sell, stock, display, deal in and dispose of all types of motor vehicles and its accessories and also to take dealership and agencies therefor. Th...
Pasupuleti Subba Rao Vs. Nandavarapu Anjaneyulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP445; 2003(3)ALT816
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 177 of 2001, which was pending on the file of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of certain amount, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent herein was absent in the trial Court andtherefore the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1346 of 2002 for setting aside the order of default and restored the suit to file. In the aforesaid I.A. the counsel appearing for the plaintiff filed his own affidavit and the suit was restored to file. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The practice of Advocate filing his affidavit in a petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC is totally wrong and illegal. Such practice has to be deprecated. Order 9, Rule 9 or Order 9. Rule 13, CPC contemplates that the application ...
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD786
T. Meena Kumari, J. 1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. All these writ petitions have been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner questioning the five supplemental awards passed by the second respondent in Award Nos. B1/93/85 dated 30.6.1987 and 11.1.1989 respectively. In these writ petitions, the official respondents have proposed to acquire Ac.69.27 cents in various survey numbers of Daira, Gaganmahal and Rasoolpura Villages for the purpose of the National Park (Indira Park) from various claimants. The extent of land which was acquired and the date of award and other particulars with regard to the payment of compensation in each writ petition are as follows:1. WP No. 11641 of 1993: Respondents 4 and 5 are owners of Ac. 1.28 guntas in Survey No. 20, Ac.0.24 guntas in Survey No. 34 and Ac.0.19 guntas in Survey No. 35 of Daira, Gaganmahal an...
Syed Jahed Vs. Government of A.P., Rep by Principal Secretary, Minorit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD379; 2003(4)ALT795
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in not giving admission into B.Ed., course for the academic year 2002-2003 in the 5th respondent-college on different grounds.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner obtained the rank of 12526 in the Ed.CET-2002. He submitted an application on 13-01-2002 to the District Educational Officer, Medak at Sangareddy (for short 'the DEO') for admission into B.Ed., course for the academic year 2002-2003 in the 5th respondent-college at Siddipet, Medak District, as per the authorization given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms. No. 150 Minorities Welfare (M&R;) Department, dated 11-08-2000, and the same had been forwarded to the 5th respondent-college. The applications were scrutinized and the merit list had been displayed in the notice board of the 5th respondent-college on 20-01-2003. After such display of merit list, selections were commenced in three phases i.e., on 22-01-2003, ...
Rasale Gopal Vs. Andhra Bank, Rep. by Its General Manager (Personnel) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD503; 2003(3)ALT760; (2003)IILLJ916AP
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges Section 2(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act') as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India insofar as it does not take in its fold the persons with single functional eye or those suffering with disability of 30%.2. The petitioner states that he was born with only one functional eye and the vision of the other eye is totally impaired. According to him, wherever the person born with one functional eye, was invariably certified as suffering with 30% disability. His complaint is that he cannot be treated as disabled person as defined in Section 2 of the said Act. According to him, 'blindness' which is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act does not take in its fold the persons with only one functional eye or those suffering with disability of 30%. The other limb of his contention is that ...
State Bank of India, Overseas Branch Vs. Bluegold Maritech (internatio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD566; 2003(3)ALT733; I(2004)BC200; [2003]117CompCas274(AP)
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri M Narender Reddy. 2. The petitioner, State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Assistant General Manager filed the present transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Code' in short for the purpose of convenience) praying for transfer of the suit O.S. No. 126 of 1999 from the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for disposal of the same along with OA No. 77 of 2002 and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the 1st respondent Company had availed loan facilities with limits of Rs. 375 lakhs from the petitioner Bank after executing the security documents from time to time. As the 1st respondent Company committed default in repaying the loan amounts together with interest, the petitioner Bank filed OA No. 137 of 2000 on 24-2-2000 against the 1st respondent Company and the guarantors before the...
B.R. Koteswara Rao Vs. G. Rameswari Bai @ G. Rameswari Devi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004AP34; 2003(4)ALD662
C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment in A.S.No. 1195 of 2002 and cross-objections. For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Ex.B.1 receipt dated 5-12-1974, said to have been executed by her in favour of the 1st defendant, is forged, and hence is void and inoperative, and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for possession of the plaint schedule property by evicting the 1st defendant therefrom and consequential reliefs.3. The case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property of 11 acres 9 guntas in S.No. 101 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased it under a registered...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »