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.
Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)186CTR(AP)451; 2005(185)ELT236(AP); 2006[3]STR565
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. All these Writ Petitions raise common questions of facts and law therefore, are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of facts, we give reference to Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2004 and also to the counter filed in the same Writ Petition.2. The constitutional validity of levy of service tax by the Parliament on freight charges incurred by the petitioner on carriage of goods by road, is challenged. This petitioner had filed earlier, Writ Petition No. 950 of 1998 and had questioned the charging provisions on the ground of absence of legislative competence. This Writ Petition was allowed by the Court with a batch, on 5.11.1999, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharathi : 1999ECR53(SC) , striking down Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) relating to payment of service tax by users of clearing and forwarding agents service and users of goods transport service. By Finance Act, 2000, the Parliament amended the provisions for the limited peri...
K. Sudarshan Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P., Roads and Buildings Dept. and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP228; 2005(2)ALD252; 2005(1)ALT712
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in revalidating the technical bid of the 5th respondent for the work of formation of approach four lane road from Hyderabad - Srisailam road to the proposed International Airport at Shamshabad and opening the price bid after rejection of the technical bid of the 5th respondent as per the scheduled dates contained in the notice inviting tender as arbitrary and mala fide and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider and accept the tender of the petitioner without taking into account of the tender of the 5th respondent.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition may be delineated as follows:The 3rd respondent issued Notice Inviting Tenders (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT') on 'e' Procurement Platform basis vide Tender Notification No. TS1/T4/1530/ 2004-05-5, dated 1 -7-2004 about formation of approach four lane road f...
P. Viswanath Vs. Joint Collector Anantapur and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD37
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is the dealer of a fair price shop of Shop No.2 of Gariadinna Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. Through proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, the 2nd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. He also filed an application for interim orders. Through his order, dated 12-1-2005, the 1st respondent rejected the application for stay. Hence, this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. He contends that though the petitioner engaged an advocate and submitted explanation on 13-12-2004 after receiving the show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent proceeded as though the explanation was not submitted at all. He contends that though a specific plea was raised before the 1st respondent, in this regard, it was not taken into account.3. Learned Government Pleade...
K. Balamukundam Gupta and anr. Vs. K. Saiprakash and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD39; 2005(2)ALT60
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are Defendants 1 and 2 in OS No.52 of 1996, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. The suit was filed by the Respondents 1 to 3, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The recording of evidence is in progress. During the course of his evidence, the fourth respondent, who is the Defendant No.3 in the suit, filed documents Exs.B1 to B-27. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of Ex.B-1. According to them, though it is named as an agreement of sale, for all practical purposes, it is a sale deed and is inadmissible in evidence, since it was registered. It was also contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer treated the same as sale deed and collected stamp duty upon the document. The petitioners filed IA No.251 of 2004, raising this objection. The Trial Court rejected the I.A. through its order dated 1.10.2004. Hence this civil revision petition.2. Learned ...
Mala Bandlaiah Vs. Bathina Utcheerappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD493; 2005(3)ALT663
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed O.P. No. 5 of 2001 questioning the election of the first respondent as Sarpanch of Devanakonda Gram Panchayat in which first respondent filed his counter contesting the said O.P. After the O.P. was posted for trial first respondent filed I.A. No. 152 of 2002 under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C to strike out Paragraphs 4 and 5 of O.P. No. 5 of 2001. After contest by the revision petitioner, the Tribunal allowed I.A. No. 152 of 2002 and consequently dismissed O.P. No. 5 of 2001 on the ground that no cause survives for his decision. Hence, this revision by the petitioner in O.P. No. 5 of 2001.2. The ground on which revision petitioner filed the O.P. is that the counting of the votes which took place in a small hall in a crowded place was not done properly and that votes polled in his favour were treated as invalid overruling the objections by his agents and in some cases his agents were not allowed to properly s...
K. Namaiah Vs. G. Narshimaiah Setty and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT574
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two revisions are between the same parties and arose Under similar circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Sri G. Narshimaiah Setty is the sole respondent in C. R. P. No. 2315 of 2002. In C. R. P. No. 2318 of 2002, he is the first respondent, and respondents, 2, 3 and 4 are his brothers. Reference to him, will extend to other respondents also.2. The petitioner filed O. S. Nos. 19 and 20 of 2000, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, against the respondent for recovery of certain amounts, on the strength of pronotes. He also obtained orders of attachment before judgment in both the suits. The suits were ultimately decreed on 14-7-2000. Thereafter, he filed E. P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2000 respectively, against the respondent, for execution of the decrees. On coming to know that an item of property belonging to the respondent was sold in E. P. N-o.20 of 1999 in O. S. No. 87 of 1998, in the same Court and a sum of Rs. 2,37,00...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Yadaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC426; 2007ACJ198; 2005(3)ALD509; 2005(3)ALT666; [2005(106)FLR675]
D.S.R. Varma, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order-dated 22-6-2004 in W.C. No. 158 of 2003, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, at Hyderabad.2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the evidence of the doctor to the effect that the disability of the injured is to the extent of 60% and whether the Court is right in estimating the disability at 100% having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case?3. Undisputed facts are that the claimant was working as a driver of the vehicle, which met with an accident and on account of which, the driver suffered certain injuries. Ex.A2 is the original Discharge Summary of Osmania General Hospital and Ex.A3 is the original Disability Certificate. The injuries suffered by the driver were certified by a qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon, who examined as AW2, and he estimated the disability at 60% and opined that there is limping and shortening of ...
Sarihaddu Ramya Vs. Gudivada Rural Mandal Parishad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD678; 2005(1)ALT673
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 14-10-2004 in O.P. No. 83 of 2001 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under :3. In the election held on 15-7-2001 for the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (M.P.T.C.) of Serivelpur, the petitioner was elected as a Member of the said M.P.T.C. Later, she was also elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad. The third respondent herein, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed O.P. No. 83 of 2001 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada, seeking a declaration that the writ petitioner was disqualified on the ground that she has not completed the age of 21 years on the date of filing of the nomination. The writ petitioner, who was arrayed as the first respondent in the O.P. No. 83 of 2001, ...
G. Anjaneyulu Vs. Collector (Civil Supplies), Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD27; 2005(2)ALT410
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Palkonda Village of Mahaboobnagar District by the third respondent, through proceedings dated 12-1-1991. The second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner before the first respondent. It was alleged that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in the matter of distribution of essential commodities. After conducting an enquiry, the first respondent passed an order dated 1-1-2005 directing confiscation of the stock seized from the petitioner and imposed a penalty of Rs.5,746/-. The first respondent also directed that the petitioner be removed from the dealership of the fair price shop. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1-1-2005 passed by the first respondent insofar as it relates to the direction as to his removal from the dealership.2. Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, s...
Sri Poonamchand Gandhi JaIn Dharmasala Vs. Regional Joint Commissioner ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD29
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a religious endowment. One of the items of property held by it is, premises bearing No.3-4-1036, Poonamchand Building, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. One Ajay Kumar Jain, the 4th respondent was the lessee. The petitioner filed OA No. 203 of 1998 before the 2nd respondent, for eviction of the 4th respondent. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the 4th respondent sublet the premises to the 3rd respondent without the permission of the petitioner. Through order dated 14-8-2003, the 2nd respondent allowed the O.A., and directed eviction of the 4th respondent under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act (for short 'the Act'). The 4th respondent did not prefer an appeal or revision against it, and the order became final against him.2. When steps were being taken to resume the possession of the premises, on the basis of the order in O.A. No. 203 of 1998, the 3rd respondent filed W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »