Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Government of A.P. and ors. Vs. Sri Rama Engineering Constructions (En ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD281; 2005(4)ALT26
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Learned Single Judge by his order dated 2-8-2000 allowed the writ petition of the respondent-contractor, hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner', thereby declaring the action of the first appellant in issuing the order in G.O.Ms.No. 118, Irrigation and CAD Department, dated 29-6-1998 and the consequential actions of the other appellants in giving effect to the impugned orders by way of making payment under final bill to the writ petitioner resulting in non-payment of Rupees 3.03 crores as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently directing the appellants to make payment of the withheld amount, including the recovered amount with interest from the date of passing of the impugned order.2. The appeal questioning the said order of the learned Single Judge is filed by the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained money claim of the writ petitioner in respect of a commercia...
Tirumala Wines Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD53; 2005(3)ALT728
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. M/s. Tirumala Wines filed WP No. 16648 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Tirumala Wines) seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad, and the 2nd respondent-the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Visakhapatnam, in rejecting its claim for refund of the excess licence fee illegally collected for the period from 1998-99 to 2003-04 as unconstitutional and illegal, and to direct the respondents to refund the said amount. Tirumala Wines also filed WP No. 5670 of 2004 to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing its licence for the year 2004-05 by treating the shop of the Tirumala Wines as located at a distance beyond 5 Kms from the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to renew its licence by collecting the appropriate licence fee as applicable to the shops situated i...
S. Malla Reddy Vs. M. Vijayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALT100
ORDERDevinder Gupta, C.J.1. Card-holder has filed this appeal, against the Order of learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent and thereby staying the Order of cancellation of dealership pending disposal of appeal before the Joint collector.2. We have heard the counsel for the parties.3. Writ petitioner was appointed dealer of fair price shop of Athiralladinne Village, Anantapur District. On 10th July, 2004, show cause notice was issued on three charges saying that the fair price shop dealer had diverted 156 kgs of rice to black market for pecuniary gains and deprived benefits to the poor card holders. For these three charges, she was directed to explain as to why the fair price shop dealership should not be suspended. The authorization was suspended during pendency of enquiry on 2nd August, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner and when no interim orders were passed, W.P.No. 14030 of 2004 was filed. The said Writ Pe...
B. Bhoomarajam Vs. Joint Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD48
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner a political sufferer was assigned Acs.10.00 of land in S No. 805 of Medchal Village on 27-10-1967. On 3-10-1990, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, East Division, issued a show-cause notice as to why the assignment in his favour should not be cancelled as the land assigned is within the reserve forest area and is covered by the ban, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1122 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 29-6-1961, prohibiting assignment of such land. Petitioner sent a reply that the land assigned to him is not in Forest, as it was deleted by G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 18-1-1963 from forest area and since he spent a huge amount for developing the land assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. No action seems to have taken thereafter in pursuance of that show-cause notice.2. Subsequently, on 9-7-1996, the District Revenue Officer, Rangareddy District, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, as to why the assignment of land made to him should not be cance...
Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan and ors. Vs. Hotel Saravana Bhavan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD263; 2005(3)ALT789
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Aggrieved of the order and decree dated 4-8-2004 made in I.A. No. 1015 of 2004 in O.S. No. 20 of 2004 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, allowing the petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. restraining the appellants herein - defendants in the suit, and their men from using the name of Hotel Saravana Bhavan or Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan or similar type name to their hotel business at Car Street, Srikalahasti, till the disposal of the suit, the defendants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Originally the suit was filed for declaration that the registration of defendant's firm in the name as Saravana Bhavan or Chennai Saravana Bhavan or running hotel business in that name is null and void, inasmuch as it is identical and resembles the name of the plaintiffs firm and tends to cause confusion in the public and damaging the reputation of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief of permanent inj...
Valishetty Manohar Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)805; III(2006)BC479
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.C. No. 779 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) Nalgonda, against the judgment of the said Court dated 19.4.2002 ordering acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420, IPC against the 2nd respondent herein.The appellant contended that on account of the previous acquaintance, the 2nd respondent approached the complainant on 9.5.1999 for a hand loan of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- for his family necessities and he provided the said loan and obtained Ex. P-1 promissory note. Subsequently, when the appellant demanded the 2nd respondent for payment of the amount, he postponed the same and ultimately, on 28.12.1999, the 2nd respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 524508 to be dr...
Oil Country Tubular Ltd. Vs. A.P. Pollution Control Board and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD95; 2005(3)ALT715
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. The writ petitioner assails the judgment dated 31-8-2002 passed in Appeal No. 19 of 1999 on the file of the Appellate Authority under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has set up an engineering industry at Sreepuram Village, Yellareddy Gram Panchayat, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District for processing of graded Seamless Pipes, Tool Joints and Couplings and converting them into Tubular goods suitable for ready use in Oil Producing Countries world over. The petitioner applied to A.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) on 10-2-1987 and obtained 'No Objection Certificate' on 19.10.1987 to set up a unit to manufacture Drill Pipes, Production Tubing and Casing Pipes with a ca...
S. Sesham Raju Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD264; 2005(3)ALT596
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed as PIL by S. Sesham Raju, President of A.P. Bhatraju Sangham, seeking direction against the third respondent to comply with the provisions of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as 'Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1983' and the rules made thereunder and to provide reservation to weaker sections of the society, namely women, Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.2. The petitioner has alleged that on going through an advertisement in Eenadu Telugu Newspaper on 9th March, 1993, inviting applications for admission to Under-Graduate Programme in Information Technology for the academic year 1999-2000, the petitioner found that the application format published in the advertisement does not indicate the communal data required except the sex of the applicant. It also did not indicate whether any seats are earmarked for women and other w...
G. Venkat Ram Reddy and ors. Vs. Najeebunnisa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD156; 2005(3)ALT313
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Appellants herein are respondents 3 to 6 and 15 and 16 in W.P.No.10242 of 1992 out of which the present appeal has arisen. Respondents 1 to 10 are the writ petitioners. Respondents 11 and 12 are the official respondents whose orders were challenged in the writ petition. Respondents 13 to 24 are proforma respondents who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. We are referring to the parties in the appeal as they were arrayed in the writ petition.2. Appeal is against the Judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10242 of 1992 dated 1-11-2002 allowing the writ petition and thereby directing the official respondents to restore possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.3. The writ petitioners had questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Joint Collector, R.R. District in File No.B3/6703/85 dated 28-4-1992 thereby confirming the order of th...
J.K. Johnson and ors. Vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD61; 2005(3)ALT533; 2006CriLJ1480
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad (2nd respondent) by his proceedings in POR No. 38/C/2004-05 dated 25-7-2004, Office file No. 4178/2004/M1, dated 10-8-2004, while compounding the offence on payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, forfeited the vehicle jeep No. AP 12 D 703 and two riffles of the petitioners to the State under Section 39 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the third petitioner, who is the owner of the said vehicle, was informed that the said vehicle has been forfeited to the Government vide proceedings of the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, dated 4-10-2004 in Rc. No. 4178/2004/MI(i). Against the said orders, the first petitioner filed an appeal before 1st respondent-the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, which was dismissed by his order dated 9-10-2004 in RC No. 3634/2004/WL-4. Questioning the aforesaid orders forfeiting the vehicle and two riffles to the State, the present writ petition has been filed.2....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »