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.
Y. Babu Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD385; 2006(2)ARBLR252(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 23-3-2001, passed by the Chief Justice of this Court in Arbitration Appeal No, 41 of 2000 refusing the appointment of an Arbitrator.2. In normal course, against the impugned order, a writ petition would lie to the High Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 159. But the said judgment had been overruled by a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr., 2006 (1) ALD 10 (SC) : 2005 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 105 (LB), wherein it was held that the order of the Chief Justice either appointing an Arbitrator or rejecting the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has to be challenged only before the Apex Court the same being a judicial order. The Apex Court also made it explicitly clear that the above...
Hindusthan Fluoro Carbons Limited Vs. G. Shankara Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT657
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This review petition is filed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 16232 of 1994 on the file of this Court praying to review the order of this Court dated 15-03-2004.2. The writ petitioners-respondents herein are the employees of the review petitioner. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare that the action of the review petitioner in not extending the scale of pay of Rs. 700-22-832-26-988-31 -1174 (revised) to the respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and to direct the review petitioner to extend the said scale of pay to the respondents herein with arrears and consequential benefits.3. According to the writ petitioners, the Management appointed certain persons as Plant Operators in the year 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 420-18-528-22-660-26-816 carrying the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-22-832-26-988-31-1174. The writ petitioners were appointed as Plant Operators in the year 1987 in ...
K. Madhava Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD457; 2006(1)ALT562
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. The petitioners who are three in number challenge the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act) in Form 2-A published in A.P. Gazette dated 23.8.2005 insofar as it relates to their lands comprising survey Nos. 460, 461 and 462 in Uppal Bhagath Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District.2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is :The 1st petitioner purchased Ac.0.30 guntas of land in S.No.460. He gifted it to 2nd petitioner who is his wife under a gift deed dated 15.3.2002. 3rd petitioner is the owner of Ac.0.17 guntas in S.No.460, Ac.2.12 guntas in S.No.461 and Ac. 1.08 guntas in S.No.462 at Uppal Bhagath, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District. The land is being used for growing grass. Eucalyptus trees fence it. It is situated adjacent to Uppal main road which joins national highway No. 9-Hyderabad to Vijayawada. Towards south of the petitioners land at a distance of 900 meters river moosi is located which runs from East to ...
Navodaya Finance and Hire Purchase Pvt. Limited, Rep. by Its Partners ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT438
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the opposite parties in Consumer Dispute No. 40 of 1999 on the file of the District Forum, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').2. The third respondent made a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the revision petitioners before the District Forum praying either to release the tractor seized by the opposite parties in good condition by directing the opposite parties to receive the amount due to them or to refund the amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 06-10-1997 till the date of realization with costs.3. The following are the complaint averments in brief:The complainant is an agriculturist. He purchased a tractor on hire purchase basis from the first petitioner by depositing Rs. 1,18,000/- and executing a hire purchase agreement. The Tractor was delivered to him on 11-9-1996. The complainant paid Rs. 1,82,000/- along with ...
P.V.S. Reddy Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD293
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is working as conductor in the Gooty Depot of APSRTC. He was issued an order of suspension, as well as a charge-sheet, dated 5.7.2000, alleging that he failed to collect fare and issue ticket to a passenger. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the allegations. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted the report, holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. In turn, the Depot Manager, the first respondent, issued an order-cum-show-cause notice, dated 6.10.2000. Through that, on the one hand, he imposed the punishment of stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect and on the other hand, directed the petitioner to explain, as to why the period of suspension shall not be treated as, not on duty. The first respondent passed an order dated 18.11.2000, directing that the period' of suspension shall be treated as, not on duty. The petitioner prefer...
M. Sunil Chowdary Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD330
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner assails the action of the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Guntur, in rejecting his claim for the status of Children of Ex-servicemen, in the context of admission to I Year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2005-2006, against the seat reserved for that category.2. The State of Andhra Pradesh conducts a Common Entrance Examination for the purpose of selecting candidates for admission into I year of M.B.B.S. Course, in the colleges established in the State. In exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 15 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act'), the Government promulgated Rules for regulating admissions into Private Medical and Dental Colleges, from time to time. Separate sets of Rules are framed, governing the admission into Government and private Medical and Dental Colleges from the State.3. So far as the admissions into private Un-aided, Non-minor...
Marthala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mutyalapati Pedda Subbanna @ Venkata Su ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT132
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This court ordered notice before admission on 6-10-2005 and granted interim stay for a limited period. In pursuance there of, Sri Seetha Ram, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent. The matter was argued at length by both the learned counsel at the stage of admission and hence, the matter is being disposed of finally.2. The revision Petitioner, M. Ramachandra Reddy-second defendant in O.S. No. 93 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, had preferred the civil revision petition against the order, dated 18-8-2005 made in the above said suit relating to the admissibility of a document, dated 7-2-1976. The controversy between the parties is whether the document in question is an agreement of sale or an un-registered sale deed. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the said document can be relied upon for collateral purpose, but, however, on payment of stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by that portion of the or...
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Rep. by Its Addl. General Manager ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT392
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. In this batch of Civil Revision Petitions the short question that falls for consideration is whether the respondent-claimants are entitled for interest on the compensation awarded under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 read with Section 42 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 19482. The respondents herein (claimants) filed Original Petitions under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 read with Section 42 of the Indian Eiectricity (Supply) Act, 1948 seeking enhanced compensation for cutting the coconut trees for laying of power transmission lines through their fields in the year 1991 being aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the authority at Rs. 1,000/- per tree.3. It was the contention of the respondent-claimants that they are the absolute owners of various extents of land situated at Thimmarajupeta village, Atchutapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam district. They raised coconut groove in their lands and all the trees were fru...
Fgp Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-iii and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD512; 2006(1)ALT312
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 16019 of 1996 is filed by M/s. GHP Limited, against the award of the labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 282 of 1993, (old I.D. No. 289 of 1990), dated 23-3-1996, whereby the order of termination of the services of the 2nd respondent was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages and on deferment of two increments as if not accrued.2. To the extent, back wages were denied and punishment of deferment of two increments was imposed by the labour Court, the workman has challenged the award, in W.P. No. 8319 of 1997.3. As the award of the labour Court, in I.D. No. 282 of 1993 dated 23-3-1996, is under challenge in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 16019 of 1996.4. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitio...
B. Narsimlu and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD774; 2006(1)ALT343
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing of notification under Section 4 dated 10-4-2003 and other consequential proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923 in so far as they relate to Sy. No. 335 of Zaheerabad village and Mandal, Medak as violative of mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act and objects of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 and Rules made thereunder.2. The case of the petitioners in brief is:4th respondent-Secretary, A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad allotted Ac.5-00 cents each to the petitioners in S. No. 335 of Zaheerabad after collecting Rs. 1,750/- each. The petitioners made the land fit for cultivation by putting their hard work and labour. 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of pattas in prescribed form in favour of the petitioners as required under Rule 9 of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »