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.
B. Udaya Bhaskar and ors. Vs. Controller of Examinations, Kakatiya Uni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD404
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are studying M. Sc. (Mathematics) Course in the Distance Education Programme conducted by the Kakatiya University. On earlier occasions, they appeared in the examinations several times. The latest of the examinations has been held in August 2004. The University refused to declare the results of the petitioners, on the ground that the examiners of the answer scripts suspected mass-copying at the centers, where the petitioners appeared. They challenge the action of the respondents in not declaring their results. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the University did not issue any show-cause notices, before cancelling their results.2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the examiners, who valued the answer scripts of M. Sc. (Mathematics) from the centers, in which the petitioners appeared, submitted reports to the effect that the answers were found verbatim similar a...
P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao and ors. Vs. Andhra University, Rep. by Its Regis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD1; 2006(1)ALT785
ORDERJ. Chelameswar and Goda Raghuram, JJ.1. We have had the benefit of perusing the painstaking and meticulously crafted judgment of our learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao. We agree with the OPERATIVE conclusion that the appointments of over 200 candidates (party respondents) ought not to be invalidated as these persons having been appointed as lecturers/Readers have continued as such for over a decade, have settled down, got married, begot children and are now of an age disabling them from securing alternative employment. Some of these persons had already resigned, some have retired, some have died and the dependents of those who have died are also being given pension. If at this stage their initial appointments are declared invalid the social costs in terms of human misery and individual privations would be incalculable. Besides, for the resultant vacancies the petitioners may either be not interested in applying at this distant point of time, may not be able to compete ...
Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD468; 2006(2)ALT18
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. The validity of G.O. Ms. No. 433, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 5.5.1993, in classifying and grading among others, the petitioner-institutions, for the purpose of appointment of Executive Officers and in directing their appointment to the petitioner - institutions, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners also seek a direction that Sections 15 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 (A.P. Act 30 of 1987), be declared null and void.2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that all the four petitioners are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860). The Ist petitioner was registered on 5.1.1961 and had earlier filed W.P.No. 405 of 1990 which was eventually withdrawn on 27.2.1997. The 2nd petitioner was registered in the year 1949, and the 3rd petitioner in 1956. The 4th petitioner, which was registered on 12.10.1920, was exempted, under G....
Prathyusha Associates Rep. by Its Managing Partner, P. Raja Rao Vs. Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT691; 2006(2)ARBLR130(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The order of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in A.O.P. No. 841 of 2002, is being assailed in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.3. The appellant is the claimant, the first respondent is the employer and the second respondent is the Arbitrator.4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent will be referred to as 'the claimant', 'the employer' and 'the Arbitrator', respectively.5. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in brief, are as under:Work order, dated 28-7-1992, was issued to the claimant for transportation and stevedoring etc., of pig iron by the employer. Pursuant to the said work order, contract was entered into between the claimant and the employer by way of an agreement, dated 24-2-1993. The agreement contains several clauses and the clauses, which are significant to note, are mentioned in seriatim as under:Clause 4 deals with the term of a...
Sri Lakshmi Knits and Wovens and ors. Vs. Agri Gold Exims Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2007(3)ALT443; 2007(3)ARBLR60(AP)
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides and at their request this Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. The order impugned is the order passed in I.A. No. 3167 of 2003 in O.S. No. 47 of 2003 on the file of Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.3. Facts in brief are that both the parties are engaged in a business under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and as per the said MOU, if there is any dispute, the parties have to invoke the Arbitration Clause. In other words, the MOU contains Arbitration Clause and procedure also has been mentioned specifically in the said clause. These facts are not in dispute.4. Now the problem has arisen in the following manner:There arose a dispute between the parties with regard to certain payments. For the purpose of deciding the present case, the details of the same are not relevant. In that connection, O.S. No. 47 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the file of the Metropolitan Sess...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpora ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD572; 2006(2)ALT36
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In these writ petitions, demand notices dated 10-7-2002 and 12-6-2003 have been challenged. The demand notice dated 10-7-2002 pertaining to the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, and the demand notice dated 12-6-2003 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04 were issued by the respondents in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act').3. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that they are not exigible to tax under the Act, in respect of the properties owned by them, which do not comprise of houses. Petitioner-Corporation is in the business of marketing petrol products including petrol, diesel, high-speed diesel, liquified petroleum gas and lubricants. For the purpose of efficient distribution of its products, the petitioner has storage tanks at various places. One such LPG bottling plant of the petitioner is situated in the Industrial Development Area, Kadapa. This bottling pla...
B. David Ratna Kumar Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assn.ii) De ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT661
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Sri B. David Ratna Kumar, a practising Advocate of Vijayawada, has filed this petition in public interest for nullifying the decision of the respondents to transfer the construction of model central prison at Kesarapalli village in R.S. No. 53 of Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District to Survey No. 192/6 of Veerapaneni Gudem and also for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to complete the construction of model central prison at the present site.2. The petitioner has averred that the decision to construct model central prison at Kesarapalli village was taken after due deliberation and consideration of relevant factors, but on account of unwarranted interference by Mr. M. Venkateswara Rao, Member of Legislature Assembly, Gannavaram and despite the contrary opinion expressed by various departmental heads, the Government has decided to shift the construction of model central prison to Veerapaneni Gudem. He has further averred that the...
M.R. Suseela and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. Rep. by the District Registrar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT271
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. When WPMP No. 18177 of 2005 came up for hearing, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up and heard arguments.2. The petitioners challenge the proceedings of Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa, dated 29-4-2005 vide letter No. P18/15/KDP/ 2005 whereby and whereunder the Joint Registrar refused to release the documents presented for registration.3. The brief facts of the case are: There are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 5. A suit for partition being O.S. No. 32 of 2002 (old) 72/1996, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa for partition and separate possession has been filed by respondents No. 3 to 5 against G. Prathap Reddy, G. Ranga Reddy, M.R. Suseela (Petitioner No. 1), L. Vijayalakshmi (Petitioner No. 2) and P. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. The suit ended in dismissal by judgment dated 2th April, 2005. The respondents 3 to 5 along with another namely G. Dattateja Reddy filed O...
E. Pentaiah Goud Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD432; 2006(2)ALT147
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Seeking a mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in suspending the license of the petitioner pending enquiry vide proceedings dated 22.7.2005, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.3. It is stated that the petitioner is having a TCS toddy shop at Appannapally village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District and he was granted license bearing No. 63, on 6.11.2003 for retail sale of toddy which is valid upto 31.3.2007, by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mehabubnagar. While so, the shop of the petitioner was inspected on 10.7.2005 at about 7.15 p.m., by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Mahabubnagar and Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Mahabubnagar along with mediators and found one person by name C. Mogulaiah Goud conducting sale of today. The said C. Mogulaiah Goud was said to be appointed by the petitione...
Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams and anr. Vs. B.M. Su ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD591; 2006(1)ALT750
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. The appellants/Management in Writ Appeal No. 1950 of 2001 seek to assail the order dated 24-8-2001 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-employee in W.P. No. 14524 of 2001.2. The respondent/writ petitioner, who is a retired employees, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the appellants in not implementing the G.O. Ms. No. 235, dated 27-10-1998 and not paying him the pensionary benefits after granting increment on notional basis as laid down in the said G.O. as unconstitutional, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the notional increment of Rs. 420/-and then calculate the pensionary benefits and pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. along with arrears.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24002 of 2001, seeks similar such prayer for a writ of mandamus to extend the benefit in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 235, dated 27-10-1998.4. In these two cases, since the question involved being common, bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »