Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(AP)62; [2006]280ITR388(AP)
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.W. P. No. 3900 of 2005 :1. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) the Supreme Court expressed its reservation for tile manner in which the Central Government and its public sector undertakings were fighting their litigation in the courts by spending money and wasting public time. The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Cabinet Secretary to handle the matter and report to the court as to why the litigation is being conducted 'when the two sides are a public sector undertaking and the Union of India'. It was a dispute between Oil and Natural Gas Commission and the Collector of Central Excise. The dispute was regarding excise duty on lean gas supplied to consumers ex-Uran.2. Respecting the court order, dated September 11, 1991, the Cabinet Secretary has taken appropriate initiative and has reported to the court that the dispute between the Government Department and the public sector undertaking of the Union of India has...
Rajasthani Sanskritic Mandal Rep. by Its President Vs. Visakhapatnam M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT74
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Rajasthani Sanskritic Mandal filed the instant writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (VMC), the sole respondent herein, in increasing the water cess to Rs. 2000/-through the impugned notice dt. 28-2-2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards arrears of water charges in 24 hours, and informing him about disconnection in the event of default, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.2. The petitioner is a society registered under Societies Registration Act in 1976. It was formed with a view to promote, propagate and spread Rajasthani culture, literature and ideals among otherthings out side Rajasthan i.e., at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner owns building 'Rajasthani Sanskritika Bhavan' bearing Door No. 15-6-9 and is being run as a trust under a trust deed dated 11 -4-1986. The petitioner claims to be a charitable institution....
Transport, Roads and Buildings Department and ors. Vs. Y. Radha Krishn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT189; 2006(2)ARBLR477(AP)
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Aggrieved by the order-award dated 14-7-2003 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in Arbitration O.P. No. 147 of 1989, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, R & B Department, and two others, filed this Civil Revision Petition.2. The facts of the case, in brief are - an agreement bearing No. 51/80-81 was entered into by the petitioners with the respondent on 10-3-1981, whereunder the respondent was required to widen the carriage way from K.Ms. 403.00 to K.Ms. 403.875 in Guntur Municipal limits. The work was required to be completed by the respondent within a period of twelve months from the date of agreement.3. During the course of execution of the work, disputes arose between the parties. The respondent requested the petitioners to refer the matter to the panel of Arbitrators as envisaged in the Agreement. As the petitioners failed to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as per the terms of the agreement, the respondent filed...
Swapna Krishna Kumar Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT577
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Physio Therapy course. It is spread over four years, divided into eight semesters. She completed the study of four years and she appeared in the eighth semester examination in June 2005. Eighth semester consists of five subjects. She was declared to have passed in all the subjects except the subject of Rehabilitation Medicine. She fell short of one mark in that subject and thereby she was not declared to have passed in the course.2. The petitioner states that her academic career has been excellent throughout and but for the improper evaluation of the answer script in the said subject, she would have been declared passed with distinction. It is stated that she secured 81.7% in the Intermediate, topped the college in the first year of this course and secured gold medal in second semester of first year. It is also stated that her performance in the other examinations has also been exceptional. The petitioner seeks a ...
K. Seshagiri Rao and Co. Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD533
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed assailing the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner-firm from the tender process. W.P. No. 22327 of 2005 relates to tender notification dated 22.7.2005 and W.P. No. 22328 of 2005 relates to tender notification dated 12.7.2005.2. The petitioner-firm is a registered firm. It undertakes works of steel and iron scrap processing including emergency container management and also transportation of slag and debris etc. The respondents issued open notice No. VSP/WC/SSD/ 55223-0/0/2000-06, dated 22.7.2005 inviting pre-qualification for the work of steel and iron scrap processing including emergency container management in VSP (inside the plant). The respondents also issued open notice No. VSP/WC/SSD/55198-0/0/2005-06, dated 12.7.2005 inviting pre-qualification for the work of central dump processing for the period 2005-08. Under the said open notices 12 pre-qualification criteria are mentioned. The petitioner-firm ...
Boya Akkamma and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD246; 2006(1)ALT636
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Properties bearing Door Nos. 5/26, 5/12, 5/8 and 5/15 at Mylarampalli village belonging to the petitioners were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) by the respondent, who, after making an enquiry, had passed an award on 9.6.1995 and issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Act to the petitioners on 25.8.1995 informing them that amount payable under the award would be paid to them on 26.8.1995. Alleging that they received that amount under protest on 26.8.1995 and 30.8.1995 and though they filed petitions on 4.10.1995 and 26.9.1995 seeking reference to the civil Court for enhancement of compensation, respondent, without making a reference had sent a letter dated 24.2.1996 intimating them that he is not referring the case to civil Court, as they received the amount without protest, petitioners filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent to refer the case to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for determining com...
S. Vipramamba and anr. Vs. Musuluzu Anasuya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT209
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petition seeking amendment of the plaint in respect of the door number of the building in respect which a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of that building, was filed by the revision petitioners, was dismissed by the order under revision on the ground that the prayer sought in the amendment petition is contrary to the documents relied on by the revision petitioners.2. In the agreement of sale relied on by the revision petitioners the door number is mentioned as 13-1-176/100. Revision petitioners sought leave to amend that number as 1-3-176/100. It is relevant to mention that the agreement of sale also mentions the boundaries of the property agreed to be sold thereunder, besides the door number.3. The order under revision is unsustainable on two grounds. Firstly, because it is not necessary for the Court to go into merits of the amendment sought while considering a petition for amendment, when the proposed amendment does not change the na...
Kusa Lingaiah Vs. Pandiri Laxmaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP121; 2006(2)ALD98; 2006(2)ALT228
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.18 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.2. Respondent-plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,10,350.07 ps. with future interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum till the date of realization. The same was resisted by way of filing written statement and after settlement of issues recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and DW.1 and on appreciation of documentary evidence Exs.Al to A16 and Ex.B1, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, ultimately decreed the suit for Rs.1,60,073/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization along with costs.3. In view of the fact that the pending interest has been negatived, respondent-plaintiff filed cross-objections questioning the same.Pleadings of the Parties :4. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount as already referred to supra. It was pleaded in Paragraphs 3 to 10...
Chukka Venkatadri and anr. Vs. Mallavarapu Mahalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD87; 2006(3)ALT353
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Defendants 2 and 32 in O.S. No. 91 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chirala preferred A.S. No. 801 of 1995.2. Respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal are the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in the said suit and they had instituted the suit praying for the relief of recovery of possession, which had been decreed.3. A Commissioner was appointed in LA. No. 1450 of 1983 in O.S. No. 91 of 1983 and a Report was filed by him, wherein the learned Commissioner observed, 'in the warrant the survey number has been given as 146/1 A. But, no FMB or any document or any legal evidence was produced before me to locate that number. As there was no time to take the assistance of the surveyor and no surveyor's assistance was provided by the parties to me, I could not locate that number. Just I saw the plot shown by the plaintiff-Mallarapu Chinavelu and noted the physical features therein'.4. The learned Judge at Para-37 in relation to the Report of the Commissioner observed as follows:An Adv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›