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.
Jani Miyan Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD243; 2005(2)ALT235
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the vires of Section 11 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) on the ground that the provisions of the said section are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. This is a classic illustration as to how a person in possession of valuable property in urban area, apparently does not belong to him, abuses the process of Court.3. The facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to filing of this writ petition by a tenant of premises bearing Municipal No. 10-3-653/7 (H.No. 272/3 RT) situated at Mallepally, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as premises) are that one P. Hanumanth Rao, S/o P. Govind Rao purchased the premises from Andhra Pradesh Housing Board under a registered sale deed dated 9.2.1970. The said P. Hanumanth Rao executed a benami deed on 28.2.1970 where under ...
Bathini Rajalingam and anr. Vs. Nandala Rajesham and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD570; 2005(2)ALT646
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners and B. Anjayya against the dismissal of OS No. 44 of 1993, an application to bring on record Respondents 4 to 7 as the legal representatives of the deceased Anjayya was filed and allowed on 12-4-2004. In the cross-objections filed by them in the said appeal, Respondents 1 to 3 filed IA No. 96 of 2004 under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 CPC on 27-7-2004, seeking leave of the Court to amend the cause title in the cross-objections by including the names of Respondents 4 to 7 as the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent i.e., Anjayya which was allowed by the order under revision. Questioning the same, the appellants, who are the respondents in the cross-objections, preferred this revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the Court below was in error in allowing the petition to amend the cause title of the cross-objections without the same being...
G. Narayana Swamy Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Hlc
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD737; 2005(3)ALT330
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the decree holder, who seeks to assail the order dated 21-4-2004 passed in E.P. No. Nil of 2004 in OP No. 93 of 1985/CF.No. 10970 dated 17-12-2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, closing the proceedings in the above unnumbered EP and directing the claimant to file a fresh EP in accordance with the observations made in the order and further directing the office to note the guidelines issued in the order while registering the EP in this case as well as other EPs in land acquisition cases.2. The facts of the case are that the decree holder filed EP for realization of the amount due pursuant to the decree passed by this Court in AS No. 791 of 1988, which was preferred against the award passed in OP No. 93 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. Originally the Land Acquisition Offi...
N. Bhujanga Rao and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD526; 2005(3)ALT72
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These Batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the unsuccessful applicants in O.A. No. 7526/2003 & Batch on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as 'Tribunal' hereinafter. The writ petitioners/applicants in the O.As. are Sub-Inspectors of Police who were recruited in the year 1991 in pursuance of notification by the A. P. State Level Police Recruitment Board, in short hereinafter referred to as 'Board', dated 12-1-1991 issued for 70 vacancies of Civil Sub-Inspectors in Zone IV and 5 Reserve Sub-Inspectors in Zone VI. The applicants commenced training on 15-7-1991 and were appointed as Sub-Inspectors and had completed probation and became eligible for promotion too. It is stated that these applicants are governed by A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No. 1263, dated 26-8-1959 and by Special Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No. 374, Home Department, dated 14-12-1990. The details of the five methods of recruitm...
Advanta India Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD245; 2005(3)ALT604
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, a common question, namely, whether market fee, under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Markets Act'), is leviable on the seeds, manufactured by the petitioners, arises for consideration.2. The petitioners are manufacturers and producers of seeds, of different varieties, within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners state that they undertake extensive research in bringing about hybrid varieties, and once a variety is successfully evolved, the foundation seed is given to selected farmers for multiplication, and the seeds so produced are procured by them. Thereafter, seeds are further processed, packaged and sold as certified seeds. All the petitioners got themselves registered under the relevant provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, and some of them have obtained registration under the Seeds Control Order 1983 (for short 'the Control Order'), issued under the Essential Commodi...
C. Sreedhara Raja Vs. S. Vittoba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP322; 2005(3)ALD316; 2005(3)ALT343
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 16-8-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, allowing the application in IA No. 101 of 2003 in RCC No. 23 of 2002, filed under Sections 33 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity 'the Stamp Act') seeking to send an unregistered document to the competent authority for the purpose of impounding and levying stamp duty and penalty.3. The petitioner filed RCC No. 23 of 2002 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question.4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as 'the landlord' and 'the tenant' respectively.5. The tenant along with the counter filed the document under controversy, which is said to be a memorandum of partition deed. But, the said document admittedly, is an unregistered and xerox copy of the original document. The original document has not been filed before the Court below.6. A...
S. Malla Reddy and ors. Vs. Director, Professor G. Rami Reddy Centre f ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALT447
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioners-appellants have joined the course during the academic years 1994-96 offered by the respondent-University by way of distant education under Open University System. Petitioner's case is that they have cleared 16 and 17 subjects out of 18 subjects and are yet to qualify only one or two papers, but, are not being permitted by the respondent-University to appear in the examinations, and, thus, sought direction against respondents to permit the petitioners to complete their course by appearing in one/two examinations so as to enable them to qualify in the course in question. Writ Petition was opposed and the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the University had taken a decision having regard to the directions issued by the University Grants Commission, which action of respondent-University was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, and, before discontinuance of the course, the University also considered the hardship o...
S.K. Mahaboob Peer Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Dep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALT410
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The vehicle (Ambassador Car) of the petitioner bearing No. AP 4-B-142 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor on 7-5-1995, on the allegation that it was used in transporting illicit liqour. Proceedings were initiated before the 1st respondent under the relevant provisions of the A.P. Excise Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner states that C.C.No. 275 of 1997 registered against him in the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, Chittoor, ended in acquittal, through judgment, dated 28-2-2003. The vehicle was released on furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 52,0007-, during the pendency of proceedings before the 1st respondent. Petitioner complaints that in spite of the acquittal in the Criminal Case, the respondents are not releasing the bank guarantee. Necessary directions are sought for in this writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Excise.3. Whenev...
Bandlamuri Venkateswara Vs. Janikamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD502; 2005(4)ALT16
Devinder Gupta, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.11.2001 in AS No. 2072 of 1986, allowing the appeal of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 5.3.1984 in OS No. 41 of 1991 dismissing the suit of plaintiff. Respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff, Respondent No. 2 was Defendant No. 1, Respondents 3 to 6 were Defendants 3 to 6 and appellant was Defendant No. 2 in the suit.2. Facts-in-brief are that late B. Chinna Busi Reddy had three sons, viz., Nandaiah, Tirupamaiah and Swamy Reddy. Plaintiff is the daughter of Tirupamaiah through his first wife Mangamma. Defendant No. 1 is the second wife of Tirupamaiah. Tirupamaiah had only one issue i.e., the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is the grandson of Nandaiah and Defendants 3 to 6 are sons of Swamy Reddy. Admittedly, the three sons of Chinna Busi Reddy had partitioned their prope...
U.K. Narasimhulu Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD26; 2005(2)ALT429
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is working as a fair price shop dealer of Ward No.3 of Yemmigannur Village, Kurnool District. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 14-12-2004 to the petitioner, directing him to explain as to why his authorization should not be suspended in view of the allegations contained therein. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24-12-2004. On consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 19-1-2005 suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent together with an application for stay. Through his order, dated 1-2-2005, the 1st respondent rejected the stay application. Hence, this writ petition.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.3. The 2nd respondent meticulously followed the procedure prescribed under Section 5(4) of the A.P. State Public Distribution Control Order, 2001...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »