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.
P.S. Bharathi Vs. Kamala Devi Dhar (Died) by Lr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD778; 2004(3)ALT616
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. One Late Kamala Devi Dhar, who was the owner of the house bearing No. 5-166/2/1 situated at Erragadda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, let out the house to the appellant herein in the year 1973 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/-. Subsequently having given a quit notice, she filed O.S. No. 3373 of 1980 seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the suit schedule premises. Ultimately at the intervention of some mediators they seemed to have entered into a compromise where under the appellant agreed to vacate the premises by December, 1985. Ex.A-2 is a compromise memo filed in the Court. Ex.A-3 is a decree passed in that suit. But the appellant, who has no respect for the law of the land, did not vacate the premises, perhaps on the advice of his Counsel whose conduct as noticed by me while considering the Legal Representative Petition as reprehensible one. In these circumstances once again the respondent herein perhaps on the advice of his Counsel issued another quit notic...
Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD291; 2004(2)ALT256
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of lands in S.Nos. 163, 164 and 216 of Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the basis of sale deeds dated 26th July, 1998 and 24th September, 1998 has filed this petition challenging the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). Insofar as it seeks to vest power under Sections 12 - 18 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution with special reference to Articles 14, 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to hold that the respondents are not entitled to lay any high tension lines across the lands of the petitioner.2. Petitioner states that in August, 2002 some officials from the 2nd respondent-Corporation visited his farmyard and started, marking yellow paints. They stated that they would lay a power line across the land of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action petitioner states that in cas...
Ch. Venkateswarlu Vs. M.D., A.P. State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP220; 2004(1)ALD722; II(2004)BC376
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4.06 lakhs in the year 1989 but was paid only a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs in the year 1992. Certain irregularities took place in repayment of the amount. Ultimately in the year 2002, at the request of the petitioner, the matter was considered for One Time Settlement Through proceedings dated 23.2.2000 the 2nd respondent offered a facility to the petitioner to liquidate its liability by paying a sum of Rs. 6,97,450/- subject to the condition that 35% of the same shall be paid on or before 31.3.2000 and that remaining amount shall be paid in five monthly instalments. The petitioner complied with the condition of payment of 35% namely Rs. 2,44,000/-. The petitioner, however, delayed the payment of instalments. Though they were required to be cleared by 31.8.2000, the petitioner paid the entire amount only by 30.7.2002. Through letter dated 17.8.2002 the petitioner was informed that the interest a...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. G.K. Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD182; 2004(3)ALT149
G.Bikshapathy, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the Central Government challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 229 of 2001 dated 1.4.2003. The respondents are the applicants before the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 are working as Edit Supervisors and Respondents 3 to 7 are working as Film Editors in Doordarshan Kendra. They approached the Tribunal challenging the Office Memorandum No: 608/2/2000ATV(A), dated 28-3-2000 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for further declaration that they are entitled for the same scale of pay as that of their counterparts in Films Division namely Editors and Chief Editors in the Films Division and non-payment of the same is discriminatory and violating of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents-employees were initially appointed as Staff artists in the category ...
Advocate General Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD708; 2004(2)ALT460
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The common law jurisprudence of individual enjoyment of ownership and property has been replaced by community welfare and community wellbeing. Indeed, the common law theory of individual ownership has been unshackled by the environmental law that no one can pollute and no one can curtail the right of a co-citizen in the guise of enjoying one's property is well accepted in all world jurisdictions. These principles seem to be violated and flouted day in and day out by the ruler as well as the ruled in urban constructions. This is the signature theme of this judgment in this taken up writ petition which has been assigned to me by the successive Chief Justices notwithstanding the fact that cognizance was taken by me as 'taken up as writ petition'.2. It was Saturday on 4.3.2000 when I received a Telephone call from My Lord the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice M.S. Liberhan asking would I mind to take up house motion. After getting nod from me to go to High Court buildings to ...
Voltas Employees' Co-operative House Building Society Limited Vs. Cant ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT145
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The petitioner claims to be owner of land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 cents in Survey No. 233, Thokatta (Chinna Thokatta) village. Trimulgherry Mandal, Hyderabad having purchased under a registered sale deed dated 3-5-1982 vide document No. 1183 of 1982. It is further stated that pursuant to directions of this Court in W.P. 12407 of 2002 the Mandal Surveyor of the office of second respondent has surveyed the entire survey No. 233 and fixed boundary stones. It is alleged that the 4th respondent society through its men got removed and shifted some of the boundary stones and trying to illegally encroach on the petitioner's land. In the said circumstances, the petitioner society has addressed a letter dated 21-7-2003 to the first respondent seeking permission to lay a fencing around its land. Since, no action was taken, petitioner society addressed another letter dated 28-12-2003 seeking permission to construct a compound wall. It is further alleged that the 4th resp...
K. Jayaraj Vs. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT58
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the balance subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner during the period of suspension i.e., from 28-11-2000 to 27-5-2003 as arbitrary and illegal.2. Earlier, the petitioner was removed from service and he was imposed punishment with retrospective effect. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority on 26-11-2003 had modified the said order of dismissal to be effected from 27-5-2003 and the subsistence allowance already paid to him shall not be recovered. Even against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional authority. At this stage, the petitioner filed present writ petition and complains that his subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority was not paid as per law. Such a petition is not maintainable and he is supposed to work out the remedies either in the appeal or in...
Taraporewalla Agencies Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP283; 2004(1)ALD724; 2004(3)ALT536
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of all the six writ petitions as grounds urged in support of the writ petitions in the light of the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the act') and in the background of reconstruction scheme for Charminar Co-operative Bank Limited ('bank' for brevity) formulated by Government of Andhra Pradesh (hereafter called 'GoAP') in accordance with Section 115-B of the Act are same. The Respondents, GoAP and Bank, represented by its Administrator filed common counters in all the writ petitions and it would be expedient to deal with factual as well as legal issues together. Be it noted, the cases came to be filed challenging certificates for recovery of loan amount (petitioners call them Award) of different dates issued by fourth respondent and seeking to quash them by writ of certiorari. As the amounts borrowed by various petitioners (proprietary concerns) are different and for different business purpose...
Namala Ramachandra Rao Vs. Kakileti Bhaskara Rama Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD558; 2004(3)ALT812
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 277 of 1984, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada is the appellant before this Court. Having lost in both the Courts below, he filed the present appeal.2. The respondent herein filed suit for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of arrears of Rs. 1,250/- and future mesne profits by contending that about 20 years back an open site admeasuring 700 square yards was given on lease to the appellant herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for starting a lime grinder. The appellant was neither paying rents nor vacating the said premises.3. The appellant herein, contested the suit stating that plaintiffs have no title to the property and he perfected the possession over the property by adverse possession. His further contentions are that the notice Ex-A5 was not served on him and the Court fee paid was also not sufficient. On the above pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues:...
Komallaplli Rama Venkata Dandapani and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Through ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)382; 2004(1)ALT605
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Report given by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners was registered as Cr.No. 100 of 2003 by the Narsapur Town Police Station under Sections 354, 324, 323 read with 34 I.P.C.2. Petitioners alleging that they and respondent 2 and 3 who have entered into a compromise want to compound the offence, filed a memo requesting the learned Magistrate to refer the case to Lok Adalat to be held on 18-10-2003.3. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioners is that the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur returned the memo on the ground a case which is in crime stage cannot be compounded and contends that in view of the compromise between petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 the F.I.R. against the petitioners may be quashed.4. When both the complainant and the accused have entered into a compromise and are willing to compound to offence which is compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. merely because the charge sheet is not filed, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »