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.
Hyderabad Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and ors. Vs. S.M. HussaIn Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALT608; II(2004)BC125; [2006]130CompCas625(AP)
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J. 1. The main writ petition, namely W.P. No. 275 of 2003 was filed assailing the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the application, being I.A. No. 1249 of 1001 filed seeking stay of the award passed in A.R.C. No. 428 of 2001 by the Arbitrator-1st respondent, pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners.2. This Court by order dated 7.1.2003 disposed of the writ petition directing the Cooperative Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners, on merits, within a period of six weeks, and till the disposal of the appeal, it was directed not to take coercive steps subject, to the petitioners paying a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Seeking clarification of this order, these two WPMPs are filed.3. W.P.M.P. No. 5428 of 2003 is filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank to clarify the order dated 7.1.2003, while W.P.M.P. No. 5766 of 2003 is file...
Delite Packaging Industries, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. Anand Kumar and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALT310
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This Judgment, according to Law, based on the legal material placed by both the parties, on Record, arises out of a Second Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R-1 and R-2, Under Section 100, C.P.C., questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra.2. Judgment and Decree, both, dated 18-11-1999, of the Court of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, made in A.S.No. 7/97, of its file, confirming, in toto, the earlier Judgment and Decree, both, dated 4-12-1996, of the Court of the XVIII Assistant Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller, Secunderabad, made in O.S.No. 429/92, of its file.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard.5. The sole appellant in this Second appeal corresponds to the sole appellant in the said A.S.No. 7/97, of the said First Appellate Court, and the sole defendant in the said O.S.No. 429/92, of the file of the said Trial Court. R-1 and R-2 herein ...
Chevva Guravaiah Vs. Sedam Pandu Rangaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALT318
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is as hereunder:'Is not the appellate Court in error in reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the recitals in Ex.A-1 regarding passing of consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and as such finding is vitiated for non-consideration of the material evidence on record?'2. The unsuccessful plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 9/90 on the file of District Judge, Mahaboobnagar had preferred the present Second Appeal. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit O.S.No. 78/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs.3. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Court of first instance as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.4. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is a business man by profession and in that connection when he went to ...
Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. D. Victor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALT1
ORDERDevinder Gupta, C.J.1. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC, Khammam v. P. Nageswara Rao, 2001 (4) ALD 568 (D.B.) and directed the appellant to fix the pay of the respondent taking into consideration notional increments from the date of removal till date of reinstatement. This order is under challenge by the appellants in this appeal. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in APSRTC v. S. Narsagoud, (2002) 2 SCC 212 has decided similar point and in view of that decision the decision in P. Nageswara Rao's case is no longer a good law. In S. Narsagoud's case, (2002) 2 SCC 212 the Supreme Court held that:There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction of continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits or to the benefit of the incre...
K. Sambasiva Rao Vs. Sai Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD423
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.A.No. 1242 of 2002 in C.T.A. No. 195 of 2002, dated 16-12-2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, while suspending the award dated 7-9-2002 passed by the second respondent, imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the first respondent bank. The said order was passed purporting to exercise power under Section 76 of the A.P, Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ('the Act') read with Rule 11 of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules' for brevity).2. The petitioner appeared as party-in-person and made submissions for a considerable length of time. His case is as follows:3. The petitioner availed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a loan from the first respondent bank in April, 1999. He paid an amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- till 2002. A...
Nachipeddi Ramaswamy Vs. P. Buchi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP409; 2003(4)ALD648; 2003(4)ALT642
ORDERV.V.S. Rao. J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. The suit was filed for recovery of money. According to the petitioner, the suit summons were served on the sole defendant/respondent herein on 10-5-2002. The defendant appeared through Counsel before the Court on 13-6-2002 and the Court granted time for filing written statement from time to time. Ultimately on 9-10-2002, the defendant filed a written statement and the Court accepted the same. Nonetheless, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. No. 390 of 2002 under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC 1908 as amended by the Cods of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002). The petitioner prayed the Trial Court to pronounce the judgment by rejecting the written statement filed by the defendant. The Trial Court by the judgment order dated 3-3-2003 d...
Machipeddi Ramaswamy Vs. P. Buchi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP446
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. The suit was filed for recovery of money. According to the petitioner, the suit summons were served on the sole defendant/respondent herein on 10-5-2002. The defendant, appeared through counsel before the Court on 13-6-2002 and the Court granted time for filling written statement from time to time, Ultimately on 9-10-2002, the defendant filed a written statement and the Court accepted the same. None the less, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. No. 390 of 2002 under Order VIII, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 22 of 2002). The petitioner prayed the trial Court to pronounce the judgment by rejecting the written statement filed by the defendant. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 3-3-2...
P. Purnachandra Rao Vs. Senior Security Commissioner, Railway Protecti ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALT747
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a constable in the Railway Protection Force. He was placed under suspension with effect from 16-9-1998, pending enquiry under the allegations of misconduct. After holding enquiry the 2nd respondent passed order dated 13-1-1999 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two steps, from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 3,350/- for a period of two years. Further the period of suspension i.e., from 16-9-1998 to 13-1-1999 was directed to be treated as period of suspension only. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority had confirmed the same through orders dated 23-3-1999. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13-1-1999 in this writ petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.M. Naidu submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to have been held proved and at any rate treating the period of suspension as such, was contrary to the letter dated 3-12-1985 issued by the Department of...
iswar Raj and ors. Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD126; 2003(3)ALT273
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 5th October, 1996 made in L.G.C. No. 246 of 1995 by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The Special Court by the saidjudgment declared all the parties including the applicants as well as the respondents in LGC, except the State of Andhra Pradesh, as land grabbers within the meaning of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short 'the Act'). The Special Court accordingly directed the applicants as well as respondents in LGC to deliver the vacant possession of the application schedule land to the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 67 in LGC) within two months from the date of the judgment.2. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, it is just and necessary to notice the relevant facts:3. The petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 and 9...
Bandari Ramachander and ors. Vs. the Special Court Under A.P. Land Gra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD429; 2003(3)ALT292
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. These writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, since they are all inter-connected and the questions that require resolution in all of them are substantially the same.2. W.P. Nos. 889, 1976, 2260, 2267 of 1998; 4156 and 13650 of 2000 are directed against the common judgment dated 31-12-1997 made in L.G.C. Nos. 131 and 136 of 1995 by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short 'the Special Court'). W.P. Nos. 3062 and 3120 of 1998 are directed against the judgment dated 31-12-1997 made in L.G.C. No. 110 of 1994 and W.P. No. 6240 of 1995 is directed against the common judgment dated 6-2-1995 made in L.G.C. Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994 by the Special Court. 3. Substantially the issues that arise for consideration are one and the same in all these writ petitions. 4. The relevant facts leading to filing of these writ petitions may have to be noticed in order to consider as to whether the impugned judgmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »