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.
Subbalakshmi Vs. R. Palaniswamy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC465; 2005(3)ALD251; 2005(3)ALT104
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner herein, who seeks to assail the docket Order dated 22-11-2004 passed in I.A.No. 1133 of 2004 in O.P.No. 235 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, granting permission to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000-00 as against her share amount of Rs. 84,725-00.2. Mr. T. C. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application in toto but the Claims Tribunal committed illegality in allowing the Interlocutory application in part, having convinced with the material available on record, permitted the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 30,000-00 and directed to fix (sic. keep) the balance amount in FD for a period of one year. The Revision Petitioner submitted before the Claims Tribunal that due to severe drought conditions prevailing for t...
Mandakini Naik Vs. G.K. Naik and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD353
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. There review petitions were filed by the revision petitioner in CRP Nos. 3982 and 4349 of 2003 respectively against a common order dated 3.3.2004 passed by this Court.2. The review petitioner is same in both the revisions. She filed the revision petitions against the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the order dated 25-7-2003 in review petition covered by IA No. 788 of 2003 in OS No. 821 of 1986. The review petitioner is the sixth defendant in OS No. 821 of 1986 filed for partition of the suit schedule property. The review petitioner while getting herself examined as DW2 sought to mark two documents describing them as 'Wills'. The II Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed an order on 17-6-2003 upholding the objection raised by the plaintiff and rejected to receive those documents in evidence. Against the said order, the review petitioner filed review petition covered...
Smt. B. Lalitha Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)940; 2005CriLJ2519
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the State, in causing the death of her husband, B. Nagender (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), in the custody, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She also seeks the relief of direction, to register criminal case against the persons responsible, and claims compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lakhs), for deprivation of the life of the deceased.2. The deceased was employed as a Driver on a private vehicle, at Hyderabad. An accident took place on 25-1-2000, re suiting in the death of a person. F. I. R. No. 42/2000 was registered against him by the Police Station, Nampally. It was being tried as C. C. No. 264 of 2000 by the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.3. On the ground that the deceased did not attend the Court on the subsequent dates, NBW was issued against him on 3-2-2000. On the strength of NBW, the deceased was apprehended...
S.L.V. Wines Rep. by Proprietor, S. Venkataiah Vs. State of A.P. Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2009AP199; 2009(5)ALT24
ORDERT.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Excise Commissioner passed in CR. No. 21341/94/Ex.G./3 dated 20-08-1994 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to allow remission of licence fee for 48 days during which period the petitioner's shop was illegally closed.2. When the writ petition came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, noticing the conflict, between the Judgment of this Court in The Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise v. K. Krishna Reddy Writ Appeal No. 529 of 2003 dated 26-06-2003 and the decision reported in Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Pulekona Group, Pulekona, Hyderabad District v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : 2004 (3) ALT 392 : 2004 (3) ALD 417 (D.B.), the learned Chief Justice felt that the controversy be set at rest by a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.3. The case of the petitioner in brief is thus: The wr...
Nirmala Kale and anr. Vs. District Registrar and Registrar Societies a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD137; 2005(4)ALT196
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Writ Petition No. 7639 of 2004 is filed to issue a writ of mandamus, seeking the following reliefs:(1) To declare Bye-law No. 3 relating to membership i.e., Article 3 of Articles of Association of the 4th respondent society as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short the Act, 2001);(2) To direct the Registrar of Societies to direct 4th respondent society to amend its Bye-law No. 3 (Article 3) relating to membership, so as to bring it in conformity with the Act, 2001 by incorporating the eligibility criteria and scrutinize the membership applications of the petitioners with reference to such criteria and to admit them as members;(3) To declare the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not exercising their jurisdiction vested in and directing the petitioners to approach other authorities under Section 23 of the Act, 2001 as illegal and to set-aside the latter dated 3-4-2004 issued by the Registrar of So...
B. Sreeramulu Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD214
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. Sri B. Sreeramulu, a legal practitioner has filed this writ petition, purportedly in Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to supply water to the petitioner and to all the residents of LALBAHADUR COLONY, TRIMULGHERRY, SECUNDERABAD-500015 at the rate of two thousand liters per family per day and pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'2. The writ petitioner claims to be residing in the ground floor of the premises bearing Plot No. 20, LALBAHADUR COLONY, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-500015. Two representations dated nil were said to be submitted in the public interest litigation cell of the Hig...
Centre for Dna Fingerprinting and Diagnostic (an Autonomous Centre of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD272; 2005(3)ALT779
Devinder Gupta, C.J. 1 The petitioner is a Central Government autonomous body under the Ministry of Science and Technology fully funded by the Government of India. It is a research laboratory established by the Presidential sanction to apply the fruits of modern biology to serve the public with varied objectives. It is a center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD). On 6.8.1996 the petitioner applied to the State of Andhra Pradesh for alienation of land Ac.10.15 in its favour to set up Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics at Hyderabad stating that the proposed centre will be first of its kind in the entire world and will cater to the needs of the country besides functioning as centre of excellence for International Scientists for study of biodiversity. It is also stated that eventually the centre will be developed on the lines of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), which is now considered a pioneer institute in the country and best in the world, which is ...
P.V. Rama Sarma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD361; 2005(3)ALT230
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (Sri P.V. Rama Sarma), a former District and Sessions Judge, challenges the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 34, General Administration (SC-F) Department dated 21.1.1994, removing him from service with immediate effect, as arbitrary and illegal and seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the same and to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was selected as District Munsif by the A.P. Public Service Commission and he joined as such on 2.11.1973. Before appointment in the Judicial Service, the petitioner practised as an advocate at Vijayawada for about 11 years. On 7.2.1984, he assumed charge of District Judge Grade II in Higher Judiciary on appointment to the said cadre by transfer. During the year 1990, the petitioner was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad on transfer from Hyderabad. By letter-dat...
Ramji Patel and anr. Vs. Irukulla Narender and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD817
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the Counsel for the review petitioner and Pallavi, Advocate, representing Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Counsel for the respondents.2. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the Counsel for the review petitioner had pointed out that the Review C.M.P. No. 567 of 2005 had been moved before this Court after the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23778 of 2004 before the Apex Court, and hence, the review petition is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel for review petitioner while further elaborating his submissions, had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 114 of C.P.C. and Order LXVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. and would contend that it is a case where both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had failed to consider several important points inclusive of question of jurisdiction. The Counsel would contend that the petitioners are the tenants. The landlord and tenant relationship and the quantum of rent are not in dispute. It...
D. Durga Prasad and Chandra Chits and Finance Vs. Karri Sivannarayana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)851; 2005CriLJ2637
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Both these petitions are filed by the accused in C. C. No. 141 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli. criminal Petition No. 920 of 2005 is filed against Criminal Revision Petition No. 21 of 2003, which arises out of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2386 of 2003 in C. C. No. 141 of 1998 thereafter called, first petition). Criminal Petition No. 921 of 2005 is filed against Criminal Revision Petition No. 20 of 2003, which arises out of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2387 of 2003 in C. C. No. 141 of 1988 thereafter called, second petition). The petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the revisional Court.2. First respondent initiated criminal action against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1989 as amended by Act No. 55 of 2002. While the matter is being tried, first respondent filed first miscellaneous petition being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2386 of 200...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »