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.
Aramati Rama Devi Vs. Aramati Reddappa Reddi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC541
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This revision case has been filed by the de facto- complainant challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crl. A. No. 42 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, preferred against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti in C.C. No. 431 of 1996 dated 22.2.2001.2. The facts in nutshell are as under:The petitioner/de facto complainant filed a complaint before the police alleging that A-1 married her eight years prior to the date of occurrence and demanded for more dowry apart from filing petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance. She was granted maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month. While so, accused No. 1 without divorcing de facto complainant married A-2, daughter of A-3 at Tirumala on 5.6.1996 with the assistance of A-3 to A-12. On such complaint being filed police registered a case in Cr. No. 63 of 1996 under Section 494, I.P.C. and after...
Khurshid Shapur Chenai Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD68; 2005(1)ALT678
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 7 and Sri R. Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8.2. In this Writ Petition filed by petitioners 1 and 2, of which the first petitioner claiming to be pattadar of the lands in question and the second petitioner claiming to be an agreement holder from the first petitioner, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1998 passed by the fifth respondent, the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners, as bad, illegal and void.3. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the pattadar and was the possessor of the lands in survey Nos. 352, 355, 356, 357 and 358 which totally admeasure to Ac.41.24 guntas situated in Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The first petitioner alleges that he had e...
R. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P., Irrigation and Cad (Pw) Departmen ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD46; 2005(1)ALT797; IV(2005)BC152
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation on behalf of the respondents to 4 herein.2. The core question, which is involved in this writ petition for consideration, is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, in case of submission of tender, the documents to be filed by the tenderer should be attested by a Gazetted Officer and the non-compliance of which would authorize the authorities to reject the same.3. The brief resume of the facts is that the petitioner, who is a contractor, seeks to assail by way of a Writ of Mandamus against the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting his technical bid and proceeding to evaluate the financial bid of other tenderers pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents for the purpose of construction of the check-dam across Gundlakamma River near Boddiluruvaripalem, Ongole Mandal, Prakasham District as arbitrary, void and ...
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP317; 2005(2)ALD801
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This writ petition raises a point of some significance in relation to proper construction and interaction of Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') which reads thus:Control of and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority: (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.(2) If any Collector, acting under Section 31 Section 40-or Section 41- feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.(3) Such authority shall consider the case and a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed; to assess, and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. Since the revision was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›