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.
A. Venkateshwara Rao and ors. Vs. Bharat Electronics Limited, Machilip ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD333; 2005(3)ALT693
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioners (19) in number are all working as Junior Laboratory Officers earlier designated as Technical Assistants, in the Machilipatnam Unit of Bharat Electronics Limited, (for short 'the BEL') a Public Sector Undertaking and an instrumentality of the State.A Brief History :2. A company in the private sector by name 'The Andhra Scientific Company Limited' was established in 1926 in Machilipatnam, Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the manufacture of laboratory and educational equipment. The company was engaged in the manufacture of optical instruments required for medical, survey and industrial applications. It also entered the defense field and manufactured optics based components for the defense requirements. The company had fallen sick and was closed during 1971-72. In 1972, the Ministry of Defence, in the public interest, took over the management of the Company and ran it for about a decade. The Andhra Scientific Company Limited (Acq...
T. Rajasekhar Vs. District Educational Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD542
P.S. Narayana, J.1. T. Raja Shekar, applicant in OA No. 7375 of 2000 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') challenged the order made in the aforesaid OA dated 9-11-2004.2. It is stated by the petitioner that his father while working as watchman in Government Girls High School, Bobbili, died in harness on 4-12-1996 and he alone was the bread winner of the entire family. In view of the illiteracy of the mother of the writ petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application on 23-12-1996 seeking a suitable appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of G.O. Ms No. 349 GAD (Ser. A), dated 12-6-1989. It is further stated that the writ petitioner as on 4-12-1998, was aged about 17 years 5 months and as per G.O. Ms No. 349, the application for compassionate appointment should be made within two years and his application is well within time. In view of lengthy correspondence in relation there to, ultimately the claim made by t...
Meridian Industries Ltd. Vs. Devdoot GIn Mill Ginning and Oil Mill Uni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD511
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Challenging the order dated 12-8-2004 in I.A. No. 1 of 2004 in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. Originally, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,20,196/- with interest and the petitioner herein is disputing the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Earlier, the petitioner herein also filed a suit in O.S. No. 83l of 2003 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,88, 6111- and the said suit is pending. According to the petitioner, the present suit in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 is filed as a counterblast to the suit in O.S. No. 831 of 2003. While so, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'CPC') to stay the O.S. No. 27 of 2003 in view of the pendency of earlier suit in O.S. No. 831 of 2003 o...
Penumatcha Achyutharamaraju and ors. Vs. Padmanabhuni Venkata Subbaiah ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD792
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The appellants herein, who are defendants 2, 4, 5, 8 to 12 in O.S.No. 75 of 1981, preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1989 passed in O.S. No. 75 of 1981 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,200/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization.2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff initially instituted the above suit against the 1st defendant-registered partnership firm alleging mat the firm represented by 6th defendant-A. Satyanarayana borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from him on 7-4-1978 by executing a demand promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.75 ps. per hundred per mensum. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to pay the due amount, the 1st defendant promised to pay the same but failed to repay. As the suit promissory no...
Kukatla Kotaiah and anr. Vs. District Collector, (Panchayat Raj) and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD214
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. President of Mandal Parishad, Santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasham District (first petitioner), along with a Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) of Santanutalapadu Mandal, filed this petition questioning the notice convening a meeting of No-Confidence Motion in Form-V of the Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 200 PR & RD (Mandal-I) Department, dated 28.4.1998 relating to Motion of No-confidence of Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/ President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad (the Rules), framed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act').The fact which are not in dispute are on 25.2.2005 2nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole) received a notice in Form II of the Rules purporting to have been signed by 10 MPTCs of Santanutalapadu Mandal, stating that they resolved to make a Motion of No-Confidence against the first petitioner. Thereupon second respondent sent a letter to the ...
Kotha Satya Veera Simha Vs. Kotha Varalakshmi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC771
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the maintenance proceedings initiated by the first respondent herein in M.C. No. 33 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku.2. The sole ground, upon which the present application had been filed earlier, was that the first respondent-wife filed a suit O. S. No. 10 of 2002 for maintenance, which is pending trial on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku and having filed the civil suit for maintenance, she could not maintain the present application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for maintenance.3. The case of the petitioner further seems to be that the wife also filed a criminal case alleging harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and, therefore, it is nothing but a persecution.4. The pendency of the suit for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is obviously no bar for maint...
Nite King Bar and Restaurant Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD220; 2005(3)ALT757
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel in each of these writ petitions. Since the question involved in these writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. All the petitioners are owners of bar and restaurants with licences for the retail sale of liquor and beer to be consumed in the premises of the bar, granted by the Excise authorities and their licences are valid upto 31-3-2005. It is stated that after obtaining all the permissions, the Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Hyderabad, granted the petitioners licences for establishment of public entertainment (Category-II) in respect of the restaurants where they sell liquor, as bars and restaurants are places of public entertainment. As many as 20 conditions have been imposed in respect of the licences for places of public entertainment. As per Condition No. 20 the Commissioner of City Police shall have the final powers to cancel or suspend any licence at his own discretion under the bye-laws or ...
T. Venkat Reddy Vs. Government of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD302; 2005(4)ALT220
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The short question, which this Court is called upon to adjudicate, is whether Rule 4, Rule 37 or Rule 33 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (in short hereinafter referred to as the Rules) would be applicable in cases of re-allotment. No doubt there is some controversy in respect of re-allotment on the ground that all the necessary ingredients in relation thereto are not satisfied.2. 4th respondent-T. Venkata Reddy in OA No. 5206 of 2003 filed Writ Petition No. 401 of 2004 and the applicants in the said OA are arrayed as Respondents 4 and 5, viz., J. Dasaratha Ramaiah and Y. Rajendar Reddy, respectively in the aforesaid writ petition.3. One Smt. Sarada filed Writ Petition No. 4759 of 2005 questioning the interim order made in OA No. 173 of 2005 dated 18.1.2005, wherein the applicants in OA No. 5206 of 2003 are shown as Respondents 5 and 6 respectively.4. In OA No. 173 of 2005, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short referred to as the Tribunal h...
Central Store Purchase Organisation, Rep. by Its Industries Officer, S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT693
ORDER1. Order dated 17-7-2004 passed by the second respondent is questioned in this petition on the ground that petitioner was not served with due notice of hearing.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner, by the notice in Lr.No. 38/1/3/120,dt. 14-7-2004, was directed to appear before the second respondent either in person or through counsel, without mentioning the date of appearance and since that notice in fact was received by the petitioner on 20-7-2004 and since second respondent passed the order impugned on 17-7-2004 itself, the same is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that since the order impugned lists out the various dates to which the case was adjourned at the behest of the petitioner i.e. from 28-8-2003 to 22-12-2003, to 5-1-2004, to 24-1-2004, to 16-2-2004, to 22-3-2004 and 17-5-2004 it is clear that petitioner does have knowledge of the proceedings and...
Shiv Shankara theatre Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP314; 2005(3)ALD26
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.The petitioner is a partnership concern. It intended to construct a cinema theatre in a site of 1742 sq. yards in Sy.No. 224/1 and 2, Saidabad, Hyderabad. As required under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short the 'Cinemas Regulation') and the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules'), the petitioner submitted an application on 31-10-2003, to the respondent, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. On receipt of the same, the respondent issued a memo dated 11-11-2003, stating that, No Objection Certificate (for short 'NOC'), for construction of the theatre, cannot be issued, on account of absence of proof of ownership over the property. 60 days time was given for the petitioner to comply with the requirement. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a registered sale deed dated 29-12-2003, in respect of the property, and filed it before the respondent.2. The application of the petitioner was processed and remarks were called for, from the va...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »