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.
Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Projects), South Central ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT112; 2006(2)ARBLR343(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the order and decree, dated 15-7-2004, in Arbitration O.P. No. 1064 of 2003, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.3. The appellant is the Railways, the respondent No. 1 is the claimant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Arbitrators.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will be referred to as 'the Railways', 'the claimant', and 'the Arbitrators', respectively.5. The facts that led to filing of the appeal are as under:The claimant was awarded with Turn key Contract for execution of certain works for a total value of Rs. 2.66 Crores stipulating the specific date of completion as 26-8-1994. The said period was extended up to 30-6-1997 from time to time at the request of the claimant. The works were completed, however, a few ancillary works and supplies remained incomplete. Hence, time was again extended till 30-6-1998 a...
S. Gulam Mohammed Ali Vs. S. Masthan Saheb
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD72; 2006(2)ALT39
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant against the final decree passed in I.A.No. 83 of 1999, dated 28-8-2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.3. Few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that in the suit filed by the respondent herein for the relief of partition and separate possession, preliminary decree was passed as long back as in the year 1979 and in pursuance of which, final decree proceedings were subsequently taken up in I.A.No. 83 of 1999, wherein a commissioner was appointed and the commissioner has filed his report. Further, it is the case of the counsel appearing on either side that they have filed objections to the said report. However, the main complaint on behalf of the appellant is that the Court below disposed of the matter by mere passing final decree without there being any ju...
Yashwitha Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT333; 2006(2)ARBLR203(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order, dated 4-3-2005, passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Arbitration Application No. 50 of 2005.3. The petitioner is a contractor, the respondent No. 1 is the company and the respondent No. 2 is the Registrar (Judicial)/ Designated Officer under Section 11(5) of the Scheme framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the new Act').4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 will be referred to as 'the contractor', 'the company' and 'the Designated Officer', respectively.5. The undisputed facts are as under:There is a contract entered into between the contractor and the Company with regard to certain works, the details of which are not relevant. The contract contains an arbitration clause in Clause No. 21. Subsequently, owing to some d...
Paruchuri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary ( ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD281; 2006(1)ALT461
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Explanation' under Section 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) and seeking its invalidation on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16, 21 and second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution of India. Alternatively the petitioner prays to direct the respondents to exclude the land admeasuring Acs.3.20 in R.S.No. 337/4, Acs.0.78 in R.S.No. 337/1, and Acs.0.13 1/2 in R.S.No. 337/2 of Mangalpuram Village, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District (hereinafter called, 'the declared land') from the holding of the petitioner in C.C.No. 2905/D/75.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner and his mother filed separate declarations under the Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal being C.C.No. 2905/D/75 and C.C.No. 2948/D/75. The Tribunal determined the surplus of 0.4305 standard holding in C.C.No. 2905/D/75 and ...
Central Auto Agencies Vs. Gopal Das J. Bhupata
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD785
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant both before the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority in R.C. No. 130 of 1990 and R.A. No. 1 19 of 1996 preferred the civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The respondent in the CRP-landlord filed R.C. No. 130 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, praying for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of PW1 and RW1, marked Exs.P1 to P11 and Exs.R1 to R.136 and after recording findings, ultimately ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter by way of appeal R.A. No. 119 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad and before the appellate authority, the eviction petition was amended by taking yet another plea ...
Ajit Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Mylavarapu Sri Yoga Narasimha Prasad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD739
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Ajit Kumar Jain, Suresh Kumar Jain and Prakash Kumar Jain, the sons of Sait Vardichand Kasaji, filed the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) as against the order of eviction made in R.C.C.No. 51/97 on the file of Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, as confirmed in R.C.A.No. 39/2001 on the file of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry. The revision petitioners are respondents 2 to 4 in R.C.C.No. 51/97. Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid R.C.C., Sait Vardichand Kasaji is no more. Revision petitioners 2 and 3 herein - R.3 and R.4 in R.C.C.No. 51/97 were added as per orders in I.A.No. 659/99 dated 4-10-1999. The respondent in the C.R.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed R.C.C. No. 51/97 praying for the relief of eviction on the grounds of sub-letting, wilful de...
Kolli Sunitha and ors. Vs. Kakatiya University
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD236; 2006(1)ALT654
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. petitioners question the action of the respondent in not admitting them into the First Year of M.Sc. (Mathematics) Course in the Colleges, within the jurisdiction of the respondent-University.2. The petitioners passed B.Sc. (Mathematics) course from various colleges in Kammam District. The University conducted entrance examinations, for selection of candidates for admission into various post-graduate courses, for the academic year 2005-06. The petitioners appeared in the entrance examination. The 1st petitioner secured 57 marks and petitioners 2 and 3 secured 53 marks, each, in the entrance examination. They claim to have studied for four consecutive years, preceding the year, in which they appeared in the qualifying examination, within the Osmania and Kakatiya University local area. All of them belong to Schedule Caste category.3. The petitioners contend that they received the rank cards/intimation slips, indicating that the Counselling for admission against r...
P. Rajagopal and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD257
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners were engaged as NMRs in the Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, the 3rd respondent herein, in or about 1990. Their wages were being revised from time to time. Through proceedings dated 4-4-2005, the 3rd respondent dispensed with the services of the petitioners and other NMRs, in pursuance of a policy decision. The petitioners challenge the same.2. The petitioners contend that, at a time, when they have put in 15 years of service and were entitled to be regularised in their services, the 3rd respondent has terminated their services by issuing the impugned proceedings. They contend that the impugned proceedings were issued on the pretext that there is no work, but the same work is being extracted through Labour Contractors.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the initial engagement of the petitioners was not proper and was contrary to relevant provisions of law. It is alleged that some incidents of theft...
Ravikoti Mattam Shashi Mohan Vs. Smt. Parvathamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP150; 2006(3)ALD73
P.S. Narayana, J.INTRODUCTORY FACTS :1. Ravikoti Mattam Shashimohan, son of Chintamani, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S., No. 1041 of 1985 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in the aforesaid suit dated 12-2-1996 had preferred this appeal. Smt. Vimalamma, the sister of Ravikoti Mattam Shashimohan, i.e., the daughter of Chintamani was impleaded as Rule 4 in this appeal, who died on 25-8-1998, R-5 to R-8, the legal representatives of R-4 were brought on record. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and the legal representatives ofSmt. Vimalamma. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of partition of the plaint schedule house and also for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from carrying out alterations or alienating the properties. The relief is prayed for on the strength of a registered gift deed. Defendants 1 and 2 filed...
K.V. Narayana Rao Vs. Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Panchayat Raj Depart ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD288
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. In the auction conducted by the District Level Committee (DLC) for leasing out Chevitikallu reach in Kanchikacherla Mandal of Krishna District, the petitioner became highest bidder by quoting Rs. 35,00,000/-. The bid was knocked down in his favour and third respondent, who is Convenor of DLC entered into agreement with the petitioner leasing out the reach for a period from 9.9.2004 to 8.9.2005. Even before expiry of the lease, the petitioner purporting to exercise his right under Rule 9-P and Clause 5 of the lease agreement, paid a sum of Rs. 38,50,000/-and requested to grant extension of lease from 8.9.2005 to 7.9.2006, i.e., second year lease. According to the petitioner, even while his application was under consideration, the Joint Collector, second respondent, issued a notice inviting sealed tenders for tender-cum-public auction inter alia to lease out Chevitikallu reach in Kanchikacherla Mandal. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Arti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »