Andhra Pradesh Court January 2004 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.
Lakakula Sujatha Vs. Thummu Manemma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD215; 2004(3)ALT298
T.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1.This second appeal is directed against the order dated 6-6-2002 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in A.S.SR. No. 4423 of 2002.2. The unsuccessful appellant who sought to file the appeal before the Court below is the appellant herein. The facts lie in a narrow compass:3. The appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 196 of 1981 for partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint against the Respondents 1 and 2 herein. Eventually a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share. Thereupon, the appellant filed LA. No. 127 of 1998 seeking a final decree to be passed in terms of the preliminary decree. By an order dated 6-6-2000, the Trial Court directed either of the Respondents 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 2,99,200/- to the appellant-plaintiff in lieu of her 1/6th share, and on such payment, the properties mentioned in the schedule be given to them as a whole and that the f...
Pattanabhi Vrudhi Nivasha Stalamula Yajamanula Sankashema Saggam and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP215
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali Urban Development Authority, the second respondent herein, had acquired vast extent of land of Chenchupet village of Tenali Mandal in the year 1980 for the purpose of developing the same and dividing it into plots. After proper lay out, it has carved out 1328 plots meant for three categories of people viz. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Low Income Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG). Initially, the cost was fixed at the rate of Rs. 54/-, Rs. 60/- and Rs. 80/- per square yard for the plots meant for EWS, LIG and MIG categories respectively. This determination was on the basis of the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners and several others were allottees of the plots in different categories. The petitioners paid the EMD as well as the amounts fixed for their respective plots.2. The owners of the land sought for reference of the matter for enhan...
S.A. Kabeer Vs. Kareemunnisa Begum (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD67; 2004(6)ALT30
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These applications are filed to condone the delay of 128 days in preferring an application to bring on record the Legal Representatives of the deceased third respondent on record, for setting aside the abatement to bring the legal representatives of deceased third respondent and further to bring on record the proposed Respondents 5 to 9 as legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 3.2. Sri Raghuram representing Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan submitted that in view of the reasons explained in Para 3 of the affidavit in support of these applications, these applications are to be ordered.3. Mrs. Shobha, learned Counsel representing Sri M. Jagapathi Counsel representing respondents had opposed the matter saying that the reasons explained in the affidavit in support of the applications are not sufficient to condone the delay.4. Sri P. Vidya Sagar, the learned Counsel for the proposed Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 had taken this Court through the contents of this affid...
Uma Engineering Company Vs. Chief Technical Examiner (Ce), Irrigation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD620; II(2004)BC364
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner, M/s Uma Engineering Company is the partnership firm. The said firm filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, to call the records relating to the agreement Nos. 8 and 9/94-95, of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kurnool and direct the respondents to furnish the authorised order copies of the note file of (i) Government Memo No. 53710/TBP2/92, (ii) Government Memo No. 3323/TBP2/97 and (iii) Government Memo No. 55921/TBP2/95 passed by then Hon'ble Minister for Irrigation, Government of Andhra Pradesh.2. The events leading to filing the writ petition, in brief are as follows. The Superintending Engineer (for short 'S.E.') invited tenders for the work of lining of the Tungabadra Project Low Level Canal. The petitioner submitted tender quoting Rs. 84,00 per 10 cum instead of 840.00 per 10 cum. It is alleged that as per Government M...
Municipal Council, Kakinada Municipality Vs. Government of A.P. and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP157; 2004(2)ALD136
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. For the reason mentioned herein, it is expedient to dispose of these writ petitions by this common order. W.P. No. 26357 of 2003 is filed by the Municipal Council, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada represented by its Chairperson Dr. B. Chandrasekhar praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 5 to take action against Respondents 6 and 7 namely Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari District and Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kakinada for their alleged failure to discharge statutory obligations to provide police aid pursuant to complaints made by petitioner and Commissioner of Kakinada Municipality to evict the encroachers from the properties allegedly belonging to Kakinada Municipality. This writ petition is referred to hereinafter as first writ petition2. W.P. No. 370 of 2004 is also filed by Municipal Council, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada represented by its Chairperson Dr.B. Chandrasekhar praying for a Writ of Mandamus d...
N. Mallakanti and ors. Vs. Chennakesava Swamy Temple and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD148
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions. There are five writ petitioners in W.P. No. 19169 of 2003 and there is one writ petitioner in W.P.No. 19920 of 2003, The petitioners claim to be cultivating tenants in respect of agricultural dry land admeasuring more than Ac.9.00s. The land belongs to Sri Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Gargeyapuram Village in Kurnool District. The petitioner in the other writ petition claims to be a cultivating tenant in respect of agricultural dry land belonging to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple of Gudikal village of Kurnool District. The land admeasuring Ac.10.00s. All the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the temple authorities and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool in seeking to evict the petitioners from the lands allegedly in their possession without considering their claims for the purchase of the land under Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu R...
Teja Constructions Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD218
ORDER1. Petitioner firm is engaged in civil contract works. First respondent issued a tender notice dated 5.11.2003 inviting bids on 'E' Procurement Platform for the work of laying of C.C. Lining with Paver finish for KM 65.590 to KM 72.225 on Priyadarshini Jurala Project (PJP) Left main canal in Mahaboobnagar District. Petitioner submitted his tender before last date i.e., 18.11.2003. On 19.11.2003 petitioner's technical bid was opened, but when price bids were open on 1.12.2003, petitioner's bid was not opened. Therefore petitioner filed W.P.No.25506 of 2003 seeking a declaration that the action of respondents in not opening price bid of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Writ petition was admitted and notice was ordered in WPMP. In the meanwhile on 5.12.2003, tender dated 5.11.2003 was cancelled by Government. In view of the same, this Court dismissed writ petition on 9.1.2004 as infructuous.2. First respondent again issued Notice Inviting Tenders ('NIT' for brevity) on 17.12.2003...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. State Co-operative Societies Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD273; 2004(1)ALT593
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These matters being interlined are disposed of together by a common judgment.W.A. Nos. 32 and 413 of 20032. These writ appeals are preferred against the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.3706 of 2002, dated 11-9-2002, since reported in A.P. State Co-operative Societies, Secretaries and Employees Union v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, : 2003(1)ALD197 , whereunder the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition filed by the A.P. State Co-operative Societies Secretaries and Employees Union and accordingly declared that the appellants herein have no right to recover the salaries paid to the members of the petitioner-Union pursuant to the Memo dated 14-10-1991 till 16-10-2001.3. In order to consider whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any infirmity requiring our interference, the relevant facts may have to be noticed :4. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.5. The writ...
Government Press Employees Union Vs. Returning Officer and Deputy Comm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD549
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Government Press Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary, aggrieved by the order of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 28-7-2003 made in I.A. No. 685/2003 in O.S. No. 6691/2002 had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad Twin Cities, Anjaiah Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.2. The revision petitioner aforesaid filed an application I.A. No. 685/2003 in O.S. No. 6691/2002 praying for leave to file the suit without giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code', by exempting the same in the interest of justice. The learned Junior Civil Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to leave at the stage of filing written statement and had dismissed the application holding further that the suit is liable to be rejected....
N. Anantha Kumar Vs. P. Anjaneyulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT98
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri Srinivas, Counsel representing Sri E.S. Ramachandra Murthy, Counsel representing the respondents.2. The only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal is as hereunder:Whether the appellate Court is justified in reversing the well considered Judgment of the trial Court having held that the Will was executed by late Seetamma, but on the ground that there is no proof of partition between Seetamma and her sister Andalamma and that an undivided share cannot be bequeathed by a Will especially in the light of the provisions of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, r/w. Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had taken this Court thoroughly through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and had explained that when...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »