Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
M. Venkat Reddy Vs. Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Director G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD478; 2003(5)ALT447
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 508 of 1995 the Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-9-1977 and charge sheet was served on him on 19-10-77. He denied the charges. A Board of Enquiry was constituted consisting of Lt. Col. R. Swaminathan as Presiding Officer and Sri S. R. Ramaswamy, Scientist as Member. The petitioner objected to the appointment of Board of Enquiry and also improper constitution of the Board. In spite of the objection raised by the petitioner enquiry was conducted. The petitioner contended that during the enquiry he requested the Board to summon certain documents but these documents were neither summoned nor furnished to the petitioner on the ground that the documents were not available. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ being W.P.No. 144 of 1980 before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary enquiry and also challenging ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD162
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. All these appeals are being heard along with other connected matters in view of the common question involved mainly whether in the case of injuries and for compensation therefor, in the absence of medical, oral evidence in support of the documents which include the certificates and bills etc., can be accepted or relied on for the purpose of determining the quantum.2. Before proceeding to decide the question, it is necessary to delve into certain facts involved in these appeals.3. C.M.A. No. 1760 of 1999 is at the instance of the insurance company which is aggrieved against the award of compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with 455 of the rules framed thereunder, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application fixing the liability jointly and severally against the insurance company and also the owner of the vehicle involved. On 19.9.1996, the claimant, who was working as a dr...
Rapolu Satheesh Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD320; 2003(6)ALT563
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner appeared in the Common Entrance Examination held for selection of candidates for admission into Medical, Engineering and Agricultural Courses in the year 2001 and secured the rank of 5123. He belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) 'B' category. On the basis of his rank, he was selected for admission against a free seat in 1st year M.B.B.S., in Alluru Seetha Rama Raju Medical College, at Eluru. He joined the same on payment of Rs. 1,000/-. Rest of the fee was to be compensated by the Government since the petitioner is a SC candidate. He was admitted in that college in November, 2001 and continued his studies till April, 2002. 2. The Government of India accorded permission for establishment of MNR Medical College at Sangareddy, Medak District, the 2nd respondent herein, for the same academic year. The Convenor conducted the last phase of counselling on 16-4-2002. Candidates who have already been admitted to other colleges were also permitted to part...
R.S.N. Murthy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD255
Devinder Gupta, CJ1. The petitioner, who served in Irrigation Department in State of Andhra Pradesh for more than 35 years and retired as Chief Engineer, has filed this petition as public interest litigation and sought directions against the respondents to urgently execute the pending projects such as Ichampally and Polavaram Projects for optimum utilization of allocated Godavari water for irrigation of lands and power generation in the State in a time bound program. Grievance of the petitioner is that there is inaction on the part of the State Government in implementing and completing the projects.2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter-affidavits.3. 1st Respondent has stated that Central Government have allocated 1450 TMC of water from the Godavari river for utilization by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) adjudicated the disputes between co-basin States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh and had given its fi...
S.A. Khadeer Vs. G.V.R. Anjaneyulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD577
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 25-1-2001 made by the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in numbering the suit by accepting the deficit Court fee pursuant to the order dated 8-12-2000 made in I.A. No. 1941/2000 by extending further time for payment of the requisite Court fee.2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of the money based on the pronote executed on 2-11-1997. The plaint was presented on 2-11-2000 by paying Court fee of Rs. 100/-out the Court fee of Rs. 5,026/- payable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the application under Section 148 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure to grant 15 days time to file the necessary Court fee. On 2-11-2000 i.e. the date on which the plaint was presented, it is stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the said application filed under Section 148 R/W Section 151 CPC which was numbered as I.A. No. 1740/2000 that he returned from Hyder...
Ampolu Apparrao Vs. Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC348
M. Narayana Reddy, J. 1. This Judgment, according to Law, based on the legal material placed on Record, arises out of a Criminal Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against respondent 1 and respondent 2, under Sub-section (4) of Section 378, Cr.P.C., 1973, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudications made by and set forth in para 2, infra.2. Orders, dated 21.4.1995, of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (Trial Court), made in C.C.No. 15/94, of its file.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard.5. The sole appellant herein is the sole complainant in the said C.C. No. 15/94, on the file of the said Trial Court. Respondent 2 herein is the sole accused therein. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that C.C. No. 15/94, unless, otherwise, so specified. Respondent 1 -State herein is impleaded, as such, for the first time, as per Rule requirement.6. The sole complainant filed a private complaint, against th...
K. Vasudevreddy Vs. Smt. B. Chandrakala
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD481
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. I.A.No. 352 of 2002 in O.S.No.1416 of 2000 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the delay of 191 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed by the Court below by the order under revision on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. This revision is preferred questioning the said order.2. The reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit of the revision petitioner is his 'being busy with official work'. Being 'busy with official work', without mentioning what he was doing during the Public Holidays, Second Saturdays and Sundays that were there in those 191 days cannot be said to be a proper explanation for the delay.3. The order of the trial Court shows that in the suit filed in 2000, time was finally extended for filing Written Statement till 09.07.2001. Since on that day also Written Statement was not filed, revision petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed subsequently. Very significantly peti...
Thotakura Subbarao Vs. Yelubandi Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD14
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' by the appellant aggrieved by an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 granted in I.A.No.447/2003 in O.S.No.142 of 2003 dated 30-5-2003 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.2. In C.M.P.No.12356/2003 this Court granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks on 10-6-2003. The respondents in the Appeal filed C.M.P.No.12772/2003 in C.M.P.No.12356/2003 in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to vacate the interim suspension and on the ground of urgency both the counsel had addressed elaborate arguments and a request was made to dispose of the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself finally.3. Sri E.V.S.S.Ravi Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had submitted that the matter is in the nature of public interest litigation and though there is absolu...
Chinthanuru Sivaiah Vs. Southern Power Distributions Company of A.P. L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD468; 2003(6)ALT846
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner has been employed as Assistant Lineman in the Southern Power Distribution Company, which is a subsidiary Organization and sister concern of Transmission Corporation of AP Limited. While the petitioner was working at Tenali, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 14-9-1999, wherein a charge was framed to the effect that he has been negligent in operating AB Switch while on duty and the same has resulted in the death of an Assistant Line- man by name Sri P. Chennakesava Reddy, He was also placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted his explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved. Taking into account the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Divisional Electrical Engineer passed orders dated 17-4-2000, dropping further proceedings and ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into duty.2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tenali II...
Billa Venkat Papi Reddy Vs. A. Kishan Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD56
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Since the point involved in these three revision petitions is the same they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These three revisions arise out of the orders passed in the three suits, in which respondent is the defendant, permitting him to examine his earlier Counsel, Sri P. Ramgopal Rao as a witness on his behalf. 3. In all the three suits, revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs have adduced their evidence and the cases are being posted for evidence on behalf of the respondent, i.e., the defendant in the three suits. Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, who was appearing for the respondent gave up his Vakalath since respondent wanted to examine him as a witness on his behalf to speak about execution of Ex.B.20, said to be an agreement between the respondent (defendant) and a third party to the suit. When Mr. Ramgopal Rao was put in the witness box as a witness on behalf of the respondent, revision petitioners took an objection that he cannot be examined as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »