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.
Armoor Gram Panchayat Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD180; 2006(2)ALT225
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Armoor Gram Panchayat in Nizamabad District filed the instant writ petition in rather peculiar background facts. The case, therefore, throws up an interesting question of law as to whether Panchayat Secretary can ignore a validly passed resolution of the Gram Panchayat and take action contrary to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, presumably, on the instructions of the District Collector and Divisional Panchayat Officer of the District.2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. Therefore, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat with a population of 60,000 is characterized as major Gram Panchayat. It appears, on the main street of the Gram Panchayat, known as Angadi Bazar, there were temporary shops put up by private persons, who ...
Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Vs. G. Mallikarjuna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD81; 2006(2)ALT254
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the State represented by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-ll, Telugu Ganga Project, Podalakurat Cuddapah, challenging the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, dated 9-2-2000.2. The appellant acquired the land situated at Chittayapalli and neighbouring villages in Atloor Mandal with houses for submersion of Somasila Project. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published on 14-8-1981 for acquisition of the houses of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry passed the awards on 17-9-1986 fixing the market value to various structures depending upon the nature and the area covered by the structure. The claimants received the compensation amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, accordingly, referred the ma...
Godrej Hicare Limited (Now Known as Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.) Vs. Joint Co ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: (2007)6VST639(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Initially these writ petitions are filed challenging the notice for revision of assessment. Subsequently, the writ petitions were amended to include to challenge the revisional orders passed. The matters relate to the same assessee for different years, and the controversy in all the four writ petitions is also same. The issue that needs to be considered is whether 'mosquito repellents' are exigible to tax under entry 78 of the First Schedule, which includes pesticides and insecticides, or, whether 'mosquito repellents' are exigible to tax under 'general goods'.2. This matter has been decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in its judgment dated January 10, 1990 reported in Kumar Agencies, Nellore v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1990] 11 APSTJ 28. A Full Bench of this Court in Indo National Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. Hyderabad [2004] 136 STC 586 : [2001] 33 APSTJ 206 has decided that the judgments of the Tribunal are binding on the sales tax...
G. Sammi Reddy Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Apnpdcl and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD374
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition discloses not only the lack of basic understanding of the relevant rules on the part of the 2nd respondent, but also his scant regard and respect for this Court.2. The petitioner joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in the year 1988 as Sub-Engineer. While in service, he passed B. Tech and thereby, acquired the eligibility for being appointed as an Assistant Engineer. The procedure contemplates conducting of a written examination as well as an oral interview, limited to the Sub-Engineers. The selected candidates are required to undergo training for a period of one year.3. The petitioner passed the written test conducted on 22.5.1994 and was successful in the interview held on 15.11.2004. On the next day, he was issued orders of appointment and was required to undergo training for a period of one year.4. At the instance of the Sub-Engineers, who are juniors to the petitioner and who faile...
Chapala Chinnabbayi and ors. Vs. Naralasetti Anusuyama and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP142; 2006(1)ALD669; 2006(1)ALT293
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court to answer the following questions by a Division Bench:(1) Whether additional documents throwing light by way of subsequent events can be brought on record in a Second Appeal, and if so, what is the scope and ambit and the applicability of Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such a case?(2) Whether the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Anisetti Bhagyavathi v. Andaluri Satyanarayana and Ors. : AIR1992AP304 (D.B.) can be extended to cases of bringing subsequent events to the notice of the High Court in Second Appeals?2. An application covered by C.M.P. No. 24429 of 2002 in S.A. No. 500 of 1995 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive additional documents which throw light on subsequent events in a second appeal. The learned single Judge entertained a doubt whether a Judgment of a Division Benc...
Dr. H.C. Upadhya Vs. Mrs. A.R. Rustom Fram and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD701; 2006(2)ALT170
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-07-2004 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.114 of 2004 in O.S.No. 4089 of 2003.2. At the stage of admission, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had taken notice and addressed arguments for the final disposal of the revision petition.3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte The petitioner, therefore, filed I.A.No.1171 of 2003 seeking to set aside the exparte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code'). After having heard on either side, the Court below allowed that application on 21-01-2004 on the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs,1,000/- towards costs within 8 days from the date of that order, On the premise that on account of the sad demise of the grand mother of the petitio...
Chindura Muthaiah and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD367; 2006(2)ALT183
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these two writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.2. On 12-10-2003 the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Mancherial and the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector have seized 60.11 quintals of Black Jaggery while being transported in a van bearing NoMGV AP-25 T-8212 from Karmareddy to M/s. Lakshmi Kirana Merchants, Kataram of Karimnagar District under the cover of panchanama and a case was registered in P.R.No.490/2003-04 under Section 34(e) of The A.P. Excise Act, 1968. In pursuance thereof, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar having issued show-cause notices to the owner of the vehicle as well as the owner of the jaggery being carried in the vehicle and having considered the explanations offered, by separate orders dated 27-5-2004 and 24-8-2004 confiscated the Black Jaggery and the vehicle respectively under Section 46(2) of the A.P, Excise Act, 1968...
Waheed BIn Mohammed Vs. Niazunnisa Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD488; 2006(4)ALT753
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-7-2005 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A. No. 989 of 2005 in O.S. No. 361 of 2003.2. The unsuccessful petitioner is the revision petitioner herein and he is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 361 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule shop No. 15, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 16,000/- as arrears of rent and for profits at Rs. 4,000/-per month with effect from 1-7-2003 by way of damages for unlawful use and occupation by the defendant. While the suit was pending adjudication before the trial Court, the defendant filed I.A. No. 989 of 2005 requesting the Court to return the plaint. That application having been resisted by the plaintiff and after having heard on either side, under the impugned order, came to be dismissed. The revision petitioner is, therefore, seeking to assail the sa...
T. Dashmanth Reddy Vs. Election Officer/Assistant Registrar of Co-oper ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD276
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. These two writ petitions which involve common questions of fact and law are heard and decided by this Common Order.2. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be the Directors of the 2nd respondent-Syndicate Farmers Service Co-operative society Limited, Alwal. The facts as stated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are as under:3. As per the election schedule issued by the election authority, the elections to the 2nd respondent-society, were conducted on 22.10.2005 and 13 Directors including the petitioners herein were elected. Subsequently, the election to the office bearers of the Managing Committee was proposed to be conducted on 23.10.2005. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P.No. 23131 of 2005 submitted his nomination to the post of Vice-President at 10.50 a.m. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No. 23133 of 2005 submitted his nomination to the post of the President. The 1st respondent-Election Officer, having received the...
R. Mohan Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Khammam Region and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD385
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is employed as a driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge-sheet on 8-9-2004 alleging that he was absent on the previous day and was required to show-cause as to why suitable action shall not be taken. Departmental enquiry was initiated and on the basis of the enquiry report, dated 3-11-2004, the petitioner was removed from service through order dated 20-5-2005. The same is challenged in this writ petition.2. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate and cannot be sustained in law or on facts. He contends that absence for one day that too on account of ill-health of the daughter of the petitioner could not have been treated as a grave misconduct, so as to result any deprivation of the livelihood of the petitioner.3. Learned Standing Counsel, who took notice and argued the matter at the admission stage, submits that the petitioner had an alternativ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »