Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Ramesh Chawla Vs. N. Srihari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD4; 2007(4)ALT17
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This application is filed by third party to appeal suit under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead himself as Respondent No. 23 in AS.No. 78 of 1994. Before noticing the raiso d'Etre for the application, the background of appeal suit may be noticed as under.2. Respondents 9 to 13 (hereafter called, the plaintiffs) and one another filed O.S. No. 456 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was later transferred to the Court of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and renumbered as O.S.No. 9 of 1993, against Respondents 1 to 5 and their mother (hereafter called, the defendants) for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which include agricultural lands and residential houses. The plaintiffs alleged that their paternal grand-mother Chandramma executed a Will dated 28.9.1978 (marked in the suit as Ex.A.1) bequeathing her half s...
Regional Manager, Apsrtc Vs. Md. Javed Pasha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT127
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Corporation aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge directing the appellant-Corporation to examine the case of the petitioner for appointment irrespective of the fact that he failed to attend duty during the strike period in pursuance of the paper notification given by it and pass appropriate orders regarding his request for appointment in pursuance of his selection made in the year 1999, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation is that though a panel has been prepared in the year 1999 the same has expired, and therefore, it is not possible for the Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner.3. From the material on record, it is clear that the Corporation has advertised 946 driver posts apart from other posts, in pursuance of which, the petitioner and others appeared for the interview and in fact, the Corporation prepare...
N. Srihari and ors. Vs. N. Prakash and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD370
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. In this appeal for the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit out of which the appeal arises. The appeal is filed by Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S.No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, first defendant Nemuri Pentamma died and her two daughters were brought on record as Defendants 16 and 17 as (other) legal representatives apart from Defendants 2 to 6, who are already on record. Be that as it is, during the pendency of the appeal, second appellant (third defendant) passed away and Appellants 6 to 8 were brought on record as legal representatives. Further, the pendency of the appeal also saw the demise of the sixth respondent and Respondents 18 and 20 are legal representatives of sixth respondent (sixth plaintiff). Defendants 8 to 14 are tenants in various suit schedule properties, who are added as proforma defendants. Yet ...
M. Ethirajulu Vs. Rangam Adinarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)763; I(2007)BC403; [2005]128CompCas703(AP)
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C .C. No. 488 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.2. The petitioner is the first accused and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the complainant and the second accused respectively. The first respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for brevity). It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the second accused in the course of business transactions he had with the complainant purchased silk sarees from the complainant on credit basis. In discharge of the said debt, the second accused gave a cheque bearing No. 740630 dated February 27, 2002, drawn on South Indian Bank Limited, Kanchipuram Branch, for a sum of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant. The said cheque wa...
R. Sankar Naik Vs. R. Chowla Naik and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD616; 2005(2)ALT454
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. The appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent, thereby, setting aside the order of suspension and making the appeal preferred by the first respondent before the Joint Collector as infructuous.2. On 16.9.2004, a show-cause notice-cum-suspension order was served upon the first respondent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, calling upon the first respondent to show-cause why his authorization as a fair price shop dealer be not cancelled on three charges, and, considering the gravity of the charges, first respondent's authorization was put under suspension and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gooty was directed to make alternative arrangements to facilitate the supply of commodities to card-holders of Basinepalli thanda. Consequent upon the passing of the said order, the appellant herein was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer.3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of suspension, appeal...
Sayed Dasthagiri Pasha Vs. Osmania University, Rep. by Its Registrar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALT448
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Mr. S.R. Sanku, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. Petitioner herein, who has been working as Lecturer at the relevant point of time at Hanumakonda, Warangal District, files this Writ Petition, inter alia, for Mandamus seeking for implementation of reservation to the Physically Handicapped Candidates in respect of lecturers, Readers and Professors in terms of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.3. The case of the petitioner in short is that though the respondent-University had issued three notifications on three occasions i.e., on 24-2-1992, 12-7-1993 and 25-3-1996 and the same were cancelled in spite of the fact that the petitioner did make an application in terms thereof. Ultimately, a fresh notification was issued on 25th March 1996, to which the petition...
D. Satyanarayana Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD488
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. D. Satyanarayana, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. 1366/ 88-C, dated 9-11-1992 on the file of the second respondent, the District Collector (Cooperation), Khammam District, Khammam and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction being violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and pass suitable orders.2. The impugned order made by the District Collector (Co-operation), Khammam District, Khammam, the second respondent herein, reads as under:In the circumstances reported in the ref. read above prosecution is hereby sanctioned under Section 83(3) of the APCS Act again...
V. Ranga Reddy Vs. C. Rama Krishna Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD629
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. Heard both Counsel. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 16-11-2004 passed in IA No. 37 of 2004 in A.S. No. 10 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.2. The grievance expressed in this revision is that the lower Appellate Court erroneously dismissed IA No. 37 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.3. Through the said interim application the petitioner being the appellant before the lower Appellate Court sought admission of the particular document to be received as additional evidence. The same was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court after going through the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Hence the present revision.4. The main contention of the petitioner is that it is always expedient for the lower Appellate Court to consider applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC., along with the appeal in order to pronounce judgment in a satisfactory ma...
K. Jawaharlal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary, Depa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)560; 2005(2)ALT546
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a practicing advocate. He challenges the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in preparing the panel of advocates, for the purpose of appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.2. The petitioner contends that this name figured in the panel that was forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge (for short 'the Sessions Judge') to the 2nd respondent, and thereafter it was removed by the 2nd respondent, while forwarding the list to the first respondent for consideration. He contends that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He narrated the sequence of events that have ensued ever since he called for a panel of advocates from the learned Sessions Judge, for the purpose of forwarding the same to the first respondent. He referred ...
Rachamalla Amruthamma and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD75
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Special Collector, SRSP & SLBC, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, in issuing Proceedings No. D3/ 4546/95 dated 4-2-1997 as illegal and arbitrary.2. The impugned order dated 4-2-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent-special Collector, is extracted hereunder:'......In invite your attention to the reference cited, wherein the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, ID colony, Karimnagar informed to follow the instructions issued in this office Lr.No. D3/4546/95 dated 4-1-1997 a copy of this letter is enclosed. Please refer the matter to the Court and deposit the cheque in the Court to avoid litigation in future. Also please report the names of the officers responsible for not referring the matter to Court for all these days......'3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the 1st and 2nd petitioners are the daugh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »