Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
J. Mogilaiah Vs. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD454
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Teacher, by the District Tribal Welfare Officer, the second respondent herein, on 26.2.1991, and was posted at Ashram Upper Primary School, Komatipally. Alleging that he is entitled to be appointed on regular basis, he filed Writ Petition No. 28537 of 1996, and an interim order was passed on 30.12.1996. Petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 538 of 1997, alleging that the interim orders were not complied with. At that stage, the first respondent issued orders dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner on regular basis in a scale of pay, against an existing vacancy. Subsequently, his appointment was regularized, through proceedings dated 14.9.2001, with effect from 6.8.1997.2. Petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2004, seeking regularization with effect from 26.2.1991, and for payment of the consequential benefits. Alleging that the representation was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 25228 of 2004. The writ pet...
Ediga Ramesh Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)324; 2006CriLJ1443
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 33 of 1996, dated 27-2-1998, whereby the appellant/A 1 was convicted of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A2 to A4 were also convicted of the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A-1 is the son, A-3 is the wife and A-4 is the sister of one Yellaiah. A-2 is the mother of A-3. All the accused and the de facto-complainant, who was examin...
P. Venkata Rao Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD821
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was granted lease of maintaining and running a Tollgate across the Kommamuru canal on Tenali-Narakoduru road in Guntur District from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2006. The corresponding lease deed was executed on 31.3.2004 and was registered with the fifth respondent. The lease deed is said to have been released, on being satisfied that proper stamp duty and necessary registration charges were paid.2. The audit party of the registration department had verified the records of the fifth respondent and found that there is a deficit of Rs. 2,18,784/- towards stamp duty and a sum of Rs. 14,640/- towards registration charges on the lease deed dated 31.3.2004. On receiving the report of the audit party, the fifth respondent addressed a letter, dated 29.9.2005, to the parties to the document, namely, the petitioner and the first respondent, requiring them to pay a sum of Rs. 2,33,474/- within the time stipulated therein. Consequently, the first respondent addre...
K. Hemasekar Vs. Group Executive Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD413
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that Brahmanacheruvu of Cherlopalli was assigned to G. Venkataswami Reddy and seven others in the year 1916 by the then Special Settlement Officer, Madras, and that the assignees have been enjoying fishing rights in the said tank by paying rentals fixed by the Government, and when the Surpanch of Thenabanda Village had in 1974 issued a notice to show-cause why pattas should not be cancelled, O.S.No.121/84 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor was filed seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, which was decreed on 13-8-1990 and that that decree has become final. But on 7-10-1996 the Gram Panchayat, Cherlopalli, passed a resolution in resolution No.l, to put the fishing rights in Brahmanacheruvu to public auction, ignoring the decree of the civil Court, and so he and others got issued a legal notice to the respondents i.e. The Group Executive Officer and District Panchayat Officer, but ignoring the said notice th...
Ganesh Dal Mill and ors. Vs. Maram Narsaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD481; 2006(2)ALT196; II(2007)BC134
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, the Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, the Counsel representing the 1st respondent who had lodged the caveat.2. The matter came up on 20-12-2005. After hearing the counsel on record, this Court granted interim stay for a period of one week in case the cheque had not been already issued and directed the matter to appear in the list on this day. It is represented by Sri Venkat Rama Rao, the Counsel representing the revision petitioners that the 1st respondent in the C.R.P.-the 3rd party auction purchaser alone is the contesting party and respondents 3 to 6 are not necessary parties and inasmuch as R-2-the plaintiff is not seriously disputing the matter notice need not be served on the 2nd respondent.3. The C.R.P. is filed by the revision petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 14-12-2005, dismissing the ...
Tanala Satyanarayana Vs. Tanali Ramarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD542; 2006(1)ALT718
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Defendant No. 3 is the petitioner herein.3. The core issue involved in this revision is as to whether the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff can be subjected to further cross-examination after the said witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff himself.4. The facts in brief are as follows:The plaintiff examined P.W.2 and on behalf of the defendants P.W.2 was cross-examined. During the said cross-examination, it appears that P.W.2 made certain statements contrary to the interest of the plaintiff himself. Thereupon, the plaintiff sought permission of the court to declare P.W.2 as hostile witness. The court, instead of declaring the said witness as hostile, permitted the plaintiff to cross-examine his own witness i.e. P.W.2. Upon such cross-examination by the plaintiff, the petitioner herein sought permission of the court to cross-examine once again. The said request was rejected. Hence, the present revision.5. In the light of the abov...
Josyula Jagan Mohandas and ors. Vs. Pyda Venkatesam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT41
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the landlady, Kalava (sic) Das. The landlady filed R.C.C, No. 31 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram praying for the relief of eviction. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.W.1, R.Ws. 1 and 2, marked Exs.A-1 to A-4, Exs.B-1 to B-6 and Exs.C-1 to C-3 and ultimately ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants preferred rent control appeal R.C.A.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili and the appellate authority allowed I.A.No. 159 of 2001 and received certain document but however, dismissed the I.A.No.245 of 2001 filed by the legal representatives of the landlady, the respondents in the appeal, and on appreciation of the evidence available on record reversed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal negativing the relief of eviction. Ag...
itc Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD553; 2006(2)ALT50
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to have the award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 356 of 1990 dated 27.8.1996, quashed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, carries on the business of procurement, threshing and export of unmanufactured tobacco to various countries, for which purpose it had set up two factories at Chirala and Anaparthy. It is the petitioner's case that the services of the 2nd respondent, commenced from 23.12.1989, that he completed his six months probation by 22nd June 1990, that on an overall assessment of his performance and suitability it was found that he was not suitable to be confirmed, more so as he had unilaterally and unauthorisedly absented himself from work from 29.7.1990 and having come to know that his services would not be confirmed, he had further abstained from work from 4.8.1990 onwards. The 2nd respondent i...
Chundi Bapamma (Died) by Lr. Vs. Boggavarapu Peda Punnaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD260
G. Rohini, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-9-1990 in A.S.No.85 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Guntur reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 300 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S, No.300 of 1981 which was filed seeking a declaration that she has become the absolute owner of the Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule property by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and for the enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per annum and to create a charge on the plaint 'B' schedule property for the said payment. The respondent herein/the sole defendant contested the suit claim. The trial Court by judgment dated 31-12-1987 partly decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff became full owner of Item Nos. l to 3 of the plaint-A schedule property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for s...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. Mirza Basheer Baig and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD685
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in M.P. No. 4 of 1996 in I.D. No. 21 of 1980, dated 7.4.1997, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal Depot, has filed the present writ petition.2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the first respondent was appointed as a Conductor on 12.10.1963 and was removed from service on 6.11.1971 for his involvement in cash and ticket irregularities. The first respondent raised a dispute, in I.D.No. 21 of 1980, before the Tribunal and, by award dated 9.8.1980, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the first respondent into service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2872 of 1981, and the execution of the award was stayed by this Court subject to the condition that the workman be reinstated and 1/6th of the back wages that were awarded being deposited.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »