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.
R. Agum Goud Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT605
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before me.2. Petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in insisting him to furnish F.D.R. equivalent to the value as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector to release the vehicle bearing No. AP 28 D 3502 towards interim custody, filed this writ petition.3. It seems that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized allegedly while carrying toddy and a case in crime No. 125 of 2004-05 was also registered to that effect. It further seems that when the petitioner approached the first respondent-seeking interim custody of the vehicle, the first respondent insisted the petitioner to furnish F.D.R., equivalent to the value as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, to release the vehicle in question. Hence the present writ petition.4. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is squarely covered by the order o...
A. Ravinder Singh and ors. Vs. Chief Commr. of Cce
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(124)LC271(AP)
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. These Writ Petitions are directed against the Order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.NO. 938 of 2002 and Batch, dated: 29.12.2003.2. The appointment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise is provided by dual channel namely Direct Recruit Inspectors (hereinafter called the D.R.Is.) and Promotee Inspectors (hereinafter called the P.R.Is.). The fixation of inter se seniority among these two categories was in simmering pot for nearly two decades. After repeated upheavals and somersaults, the department has prepared a tentative seniority list dated: 22.7.2002 and thereafter final seniority list was notified on 7.8.2002 by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II, who is the cadre controlling authority. Challenging the said integrated seniority the P.R.Is. filed batch of O.A.Nos.938 of 2002 and Batch. The following is the general prayer made by the applicants in the O.As. referred to...
Puppali Jayanthi Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD131
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner, whose election as Sarpanch of Ekmai Gram Panchayat, Bashirabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was set aside by the Election Tribunal i.e., Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that she was not qualified to the post of Sarpanch by virtue of Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act 1994, (for short, 'the Act'), preferred this writ petition.2. The petitioner herein is the respondent and third respondent herein is the petitioner before the Election Tribunal. The specific case of the third respondent, who challenged the election of the petitioner and who lost to the petitioner, is that, even by the date of election, petitioner was having two daughters and one son viz., Reshmi born in 1993; Rohit Kumar born in 1994, and Ramya born in 1997 and so by virtue of Section 19(3) of the Act, she is not qualified to contest the election.3. Petitioner filed a counter in the said election petition contending that the years of...
K.V. Mohan Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD133
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The petitioner questions the order of the Government issued in G.O. Rt. No. 639, Industries and Commerce (Tex) Department, dated 6-10-2004, notifying the second respondent i.e., M/s. Nandyal Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, Nandyal, Kurnool District to be a relief undertaking for a further period of one year from 25.9.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and altravires to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Relief Under Takings (Special Provisions) Act 19 of 1971. 2. The petitioner initially questioned the G.O. Rt. No. 873, Industries and Commerce (Tex) Department, dated 19-11-2003, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent issued the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 639, dated 6-10-2004 and therefore, the petitioner was permitted to amend the writ prayer questioning the said Government Order. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Nandyal Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Nandyal-the second r...
Gandham Vajramma and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD311; 2005(5)ALT85
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri A. Rangacharyulu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (General) appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Since common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being taken up together for disposal.3. The main point which arises for an adjudication in all these cases is as to whether the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ?4. The few facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases are that the petitioners herein filed applications under Section 11(a) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') seeking for grant of patta which was initially negatived. Against which, they filed appeals before the first respondent herein with applications unde...
K. Shyam Kumar and ors. Vs. Chairman, All Railway Recruitment Boards, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD411; 2005(5)ALT288
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful applicants in OA No. 975/2004 and OA No. 1008 of 2004 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' in short, had questioned the said orders by filing WP Nos. 17144/2004 and WP No. 19354/2004 respectively.2. The main grievance of the writ petitioners relates to Notification No. RRB/ SC/607/01/2003/Group-D, dated 25-8-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to conduct written examination for the second time for recruitment to Group D posts. It is stated that the writ petitioners in WP No. 17144/2004 without prejudice to their contentions no doubt had appeared for the said written examination conducted for the second time. But however, it is stated that the writ petitioners in WP No. 19354/2004 had not again appeared for the aforesaid examination. Since common questions are involved in both these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this Common Order.3. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, ...
M.V. Sudhakar and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD180
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Caste Communities had after obtaining their MBBS Degree, sought admission into Post-graduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2003-04 and appeared for the entrance examination held on 31-12-2003. As per the results published, petitioners secured 761, 537 and 287 ranks respectively. But during Counselling, in view of the categorization of the Scheduled Caste into A, B, C and D groups vide G.O.No. 47 dated 31.5.2004 issued in pursuance of A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000 (the Act), and the Rules made thereunder (the Rules), petitioners who were placed in SC-C category, were given admission into Diploma in Anesthesia in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam (for 1st petitioner), Diploma in Anaesthesia at Guntur Medical College (to the 2nd petitioner) in the first Counselling, and as there was a vacancy in Diploma in Anesthesia course at Osmania Medical College, Diploma in Anaesthesia at O...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD567; (2005)IIILLJ609AP
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Writ petitioners-Railways had questioned the order dated 21-1-2003 made in O.A. No. 1428 of 1998 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') as bad, illegal, void and to pass such other suitable orders.2. Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners-Railways had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also contends that the very fact that for a long period of nine years, the absence was left unexplained properly, it can be taken that there was unauthorized absence without any justification and in the facts and circumstances, the order of termination was made. The learned Counsel would also submit that the alleged medical treatment or the medical certificates which had been relied upon by the respondents cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the findings recorded...
Natl Technologies Limited Vs. Vijay Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD315; 2005(5)ALT70; [2006]68SCL404(AP)
T.CH. Surya Rao, J 1. This original side appeal is directed against the order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned Company Court in Company Petition No. 32 of2004.2. The unsuccessful respondent is the appellant. The respondent herein filed the company petition under Sections 433(e) and (f) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for brevity 'the Rules') requesting the Court to wind up M/s. NATL Technologies Limited in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is expedient here to refer the parties as they were originally arrayed so as to avoid confusion.3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is thus:-The respondent is a public limited company with its registered office at Hyderabad. In the course of business, it approached the petitioner firm for supply of castor oil. As per the purchase orders placed by the respondent, the petitioner supplied castor oil time to time under various invoices. One of th...
Boya Hari @ Pedda Narsimlu @ Boya Hari Chinnaiah Vs. N. Vasa Reddy and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD775; 2006(2)ALT206
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on record.2. The second appeal was admitted on 1-7-1987 framing the following substantial question of law:'Whether the Courts below are justified in declaring the tide of the respondent-plaintiff solely on the basis of the entries in the revenue records'3. Sri S. Venkateswara Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant had maintained that both the Courts below totally erred in declaring the title and also decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant findings, which had been recorded in this regard.4. The Counsel representing the respondents on the other hand would maintain that in the light of the fact, that these are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below the second appeal to be dismissed.5. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 40 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Athmakur, for declaration of the title and recovery of possession and mesne profits in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »