Andhra Pradesh Court January 2005 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. Srinivasa Reddy and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Dep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT554
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the cultivating tenants in respect of 7 acres and 3 acres 85 cents of the land situated in Sy. No. 165-A and Sy. No. 478 respectively of Cherukucherla Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District, belonging to the 3rd respondent temple. It is stated that they were granted the lease through public auction conducted on 22-5-2003 and that the lease was for a period of 3 years from 2003-04 to 2005-06. It is also stated that pursuant to the lease granted in their favour they have been cultivating the lands in question and also paid the first instalment of the lease amount for the year 2004-05. While so, there was a change in the Trust Board of the 3rd respondent temple and one P. Venkata subba Reddy has been appointed as Chairman of the Trust Board in the first week of the July, 2004. It is alleged that the said P. Venkata Subba Reddy started interfering with the possession and the enjoyment of the lessees in respect of the temple lands with a v...
Yadlapalli Satyam Vs. K. Seetharamanjaneyulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)473; III(2005)BC576; [2005]125CompCas623(AP); 2005CriLJ2489
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant in C. C. No. 4 of 1998 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. According to the appellant, the respondent did not dispute the liability under a promissory note and the issuing of cheque for discharge of the liability. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower court dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that there was no service of notice on the respondent. He further submitted that since the notice was returned with an endorsement 'not available', which was sent to the correct address of the respondent, it shall be held to be proper service and the order passed by the lower court dismissing the complaint on that ground is liable to be set aside.3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the point for consideration is :'Whether the postal endorsement 'not available' made on the notice...
M. Kishan Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)462; 2005CriLJ2103
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad dated 16-10-2001.2. The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 10 of 1996. He was charged for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for brevity). He worked as a Technical Assistant in A. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited from 13-12-1968 to 27-4-1977 and later jointed as an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department on 29-4-1977. He was promoted as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on 5-3-1984. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) received information that the appellant acquired huge assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by indulging in corrupt practices. A crime was registered and investigated. A search was conducted over the properties of the appellant and on verificat...
Sabbisetti Jaganmohan Rao Vs. Gowrisetti Satteyya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD242; 2005(4)ALT415
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court.2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that defendant who happens to be the owner of Ac.2.00 of land specified in the plaint schedule (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) agreed to sell the same to him at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and executed an agreement to sell on 22-10-1979 as per the terms of which he has to pay Rs. 10,080/- to Sabbisetti Rattayya towards discharge of the debt covered by promissory note dated 26-5-1977 executed by the defendant in his favour and had paid Rs. 4,920/- as advance, and an amount of Rs. 3,400/- was adjusted towards the amount due to him from the defendant and balance of Rs. 1,600/- has to be paid at the time of registration in the first week of June, 1980, but defendant failed to register the document after receipt of the balance amount in spite of repeated demands and a registered notice sent through his advo...
Principal Accountant General and anr. Vs. C. Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD1; 2005(2)ALT25
V.V.S. Rao, J.Introduction1. These writ petitions are filed by the Principal Accountant General of Andhra Pradesh and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi, assailing the judgments and orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in different Original Applications moved under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In all the judgments, the learned Tribunal followed its earlier judgment in O.A. No. 401 of 1992, dated 2.12.1992 [P. Yellamanda v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India] (hereafter called, Yellamanda case), a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. R. Malakondaiah, : 2002(4)ALT550 (hereafter called Malakondaiah case), which followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India, 0043/1990 (hereafter called Banerjee case). These matters were initially placed before a Division Bench of this Court. It was submitted by the petitioners' Counsel before the said Bench that the decision of ...
Rita Pandit Vs. Atul Pandit
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP253; 2005(2)ALD230; 2005(2)ALT220
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19-2-2004. By this order the Division Bench recorded that the question involved in the batch of cases was of considerable importance. Prior to this order, an order was passed by the same Bench on 3-12-2003 expressing an opinion that there were different views expressed in two decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). Those two decisions of the Supreme Court are Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, : AIR2003SC189 and Ameer Trading Corporation Limited v. Shapoorji Data Processing Limited, 2004 (1) ALD 34 (SC) = 2003 (1) DT (SC) 1177. First judgment was delivered on 25-10-2002 and the subsequent judgment on 18.11.2003. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also Mr. Vilas V. Afzulpurkar who was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist this C...
Parsa Seetha Rama Rao Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD158
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refer the petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, in respect of O.P. Nos. 99/91 to 101/91,103/91 to 107/91, 109/91 to 115/91, 118/91 to 123/91, to Civil Court for determination of proper market value of the petitioner's acquired lands as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act after declaring the orders of the respondent in Rc. No. B/ 984/94, dated 16-12-1996 and 29-1-1997 as against to law, equity and justice and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The specific case of the petitioner is that no notice was served on him and the petitioner could not attend the award enquiry conducted by the respondent and in fact on 5-12-1993 the petitioner met with a serious road accident which resulted in multiple fractures of his righ...
Doddi Sharada and anr. Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)408; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)60; 2005(2)ALT244; 2005CriLJ1916
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. These Habeas Corpus petitions are coming before us by virtue of an order of a reference made by a Division Bench on 29-11-2004. The Division Bench expressed inability to follow earlier two Division Bench judgments of this Court in N. Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh : 1997(4)ALT522 (D.B.)) and M. Laxmi Bai v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad : 2003(1)ALD35 (D.B.)).2. One of the grounds taken in these petitions is that the report of the Chemical Analyst with regard to the seized liquor did not give the percentage of different constituents of the liquor seized, therefore, the order of detention could not be sustained.3. We are taking W.P.No. 19668 of 2004 for the purpose of referring to the material facts. The detenu, in this case, was detained by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act...
Abmica Lamp House Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (int)-i Enforcement and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD704; 2005(3)ALT190; [2005]142STC551(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the dealers registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 carrying on various businesses, assailing the action of the Vigilance Wing of the Sales Tax Department, and praying for the issue of writ of mandamus declaring such action of collecting the tax as well as the compounding fee, without framing necessary assessments determining the tax liability or passing Orders, coercing the dealers for compounding the alleged offence and collecting the compounding fee on the day of inspection either through payment of cash or through post dated cheques, as illegal, and contrary to the provisions of law as well as the judgments rendered by this Court, and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the amounts collected from the dealers with interest.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the modus operendi adopted by the department, especially by the Intelligence Wing...
Rita Pandit and ors. Vs. Atul Pandit and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC25
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 19.2.2004. By this Order the Division Bench recorded that the question involved in the batch of cases was of considerable importance. Prior to this order, an order was passed by the same Bench on 3.12.2003 expressing an opinion that there were different views expressed in two decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of Order 18, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). Those two decisions of the Supreme Court are Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, : AIR2003SC189 and Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., 2003 (1) DT (SC) 1177 : 2003 (8) Supreme 634. First judgment was delivered on 25.10.2002 and the subsequent judgment on 18.11.2003. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also Mr. Vilas V. Afzulpurkar who was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist this Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »