Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Yaseen Khatoon Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD779; 2005(4)ALT252
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since these writ petitions are interconnected they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 19020 of 2004.2. Owner of the premises bearing H.No. 5-7-523/24-1&2 at Nampally Dargah initially filed W.P. No. 19020 of 2004 questioning the proceedings No. 56/86 dated 4-10-2004 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (first respondent), issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the Act), to remove the constructions made by her, and later amended the prayer as one to set aside the proceedings dated 1/2-7-2004 of the first respondent in Lr.No. F/0/97/TPSHO/ 2004-2362. Petitioner in W.P. No. 2673 of 2005 got himself impleaded as 2nd respondent in that writ petition subsequently.3. The case of the petitioner is that she, after complying with the necessary formalities, applied for construction of a commercial complex in her...
T. Naga Malleshwari and anr. Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT128
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Order dated 22-12-2004 in Rc.No. 415/ 2004/C passed by the first respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is challenged in this petition.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the first respondent is not specially empowered by the State Government to pass an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also his contention that since the site, in respect of which the first respondent passed the order, is not a thorough fare or road, but is a private property belonging to the petitioners and since the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard and since no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the first respondent, the impugned order is liable to be set side.3. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that since the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., this petition is not maintainable.4. The contention of the...
Golkonda Engineering Enterprises Limited Vs. Assistant Director Genera ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT247; 2006(1)ARBLR368(AP); IV(2005)BC95
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Scheme to Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, seeking to appoint an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.2. It is stated that the applicant Company is a Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing various sizes of Polyethylene Insulated Jelly Filled Cables (PIJF Cables). The respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is the successor to the Department of Telecommunications, a Government of India Enterprise. The respondent called for tenders by a notification dt. 7-8-2002 for the supply of PIJF cables. The applicant was the successful bidder in respect of the part of the tendered quantity. Accordingly, the applicant was called upon to supply PIJF cables under 2002-2003 tender by placing an advance purchase order dt. 5-9-2002, follo...
Mudiki Bhimesh Nanda Vs. Tirupathi Urban Development Authority and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD792; 2005(5)ALT41
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. These review petitions are filed by Sri Mudiki Bhimesh Nanda, the first respondent in Writ Appeal No.1710 of 2002 and the sole respondent in Writ Appeal No. 1626 of 1998 against the common judgment of this Court dated 27-4-2004 praying to review the said judgment by setting aside the same.2. Since the petitioner in both the review petitions is one and the same and the issues involved in the petitions are inter- related, they are clubbed and this common order is passed.3. The review petitioner raised so many grounds far beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. by trying to impress upon this Court the necessity of reviewing the judgment dated 27-4-2004 by narrating the sequence of events relating to the case and pointing out errors committed by this Court in coming to various conclusions. In the light of various contentions raised by the review petitioner, it has to be considered whether there is any force in any of the grounds to set aside the judgment of this Cou...
Syed Jalal and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Survey and Land Records and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD736
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to receive the application of the petitioners for sanction of plan for making alterations and additions to the premises bearing Municipal Door No. 16-3-935/A (old Door No. 424/6) admeasuring 372 square yards, situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and possessors of the premises bearing [Door No. 16-3-935/A,] situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. According to the petitioners the site, in which the building in question was constructed, was originally purchased by one Sri Syed Wali Mohammed in a public auction and constructed a house therein. Thereafter he has gifted the same in favour of the petitioners' father by name Syed Abdul Hai. In turn, the petitioners' father has gifted the building in question to the petitioners through a registered gift deed dated 28.10.2004 and ever since the petitioners have been in actual physical possession a...
Maloth Thiripi and ors. Vs. Maloth Rukmini and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT650
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.C.R.P. Nos. 1396, 1397, 2915, 3189, 3520, 4597, 4615, 4877, 4948, 4949, 5013, 5696, 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700 and 6225 of 2003; C.R.P. Nos. 360, 500, 1512, 2766, 2972, 3784, 3868, 4212, 4752 and 4981 of 2004 and C.M.As. No. 4127 and 4621 of 2004, C.R.P. No. 5252 of 2002.1. Since the issue that arises for consideration in all these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The controversy involved in all the revision petitions turns around the true interpretation of G.O.Ms. No. 406, Home (Courts. A) Department, dated 27-6-1990. The brief facts, which necessitated to issue the said G.O., are as under:The State Government enacted the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1 of 1959 (for short 'the Regulation'), as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, to protect the rights of the scheduled tribes in the Agency areas. The transfer of immovable properties by a member of the scheduled tribe, without the previous sancti...
Md. Abdul Azeez Asad and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP389; 2005(3)ALD455; 2005(3)ALT252
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.This is professional courses admissions time in the State. Inevitably, it is the time for the complimentary annual event - challenges to the admission programmes to professional courses of study. The accommodation of the numerous, competing and conflicting claims to special treatment and opportunities for admissions to higher courses of professional studies, engender very complex adjustments for accommodating the several sectoral interests. The complexities increase every year and fertilise the contestable positions. The litigation has thus become regnant. The latest conflict in this area is presented to us. The conflict has a legal disposition. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate.2. This batch of cases includes five (5) writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 4880, 5175, 5896, 6003 and 6244 of 2005 and W.A.No. 757 of 2005. The appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 15-3-2005 of a learned single Judge of this Court, rejecting W.P.M.P. No. 6872 of 2005 in W.P....
Maruthi Granites Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP351; 2005(3)ALD710; 2005(4)ALT297
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Rc.E1-3434-2002, dated 17-7-2004 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District (first respondent).2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are M/s Maruti Granites, represented by Proprietor Sanka Venkata Subba Rao (petitioner) made an application to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad (third respondent) on 12-2-2001 for prospecting licence of black granite, in respect of eastern Ac.2-47 cents of the land in Sy.No. 119 of Rajupalem Laxmipuram Village (RL Puram), Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Thereafter, third respondent, vide his Lr.No. 968/Q1/2001, dated 12-2-2001 called for the remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal (second respondent) on the application of the petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No. 181 Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28-5-1998, who through his letter dated 2...
A. Nageswari Vs. A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD206
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6797 of 2005 filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in limini.2. The appellant was employed in the year 1983 as Assistant Engineer, with the 1st respondent. Later on, she was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1998. She was placed under suspension through orders dated 5-3-2005, passed by the 1st respondent. The appellant challenged the same by filing the writ petition. One of the main contentions urged by the appellant was that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order on the directions issued by the 2nd respondent, Government of A.P., through its Secretary, Housing Department, and that there was no independent application of mind. She also contended that the 1st respondent did not undertake any independent verification and examination of the matter, and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is vitiated. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in D. Ramesh Sinha v. C...
K. Ramkrishna Reddy Vs. Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation and C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP342; 2005(4)ALD210
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate. The Government of A.P., issued G.O. Ms. No. 128, Irrigation and Command Area Development, (IRR.X) Department, dated 27-7-2001, appointing the team of 7 Advocates, including the then Additional Advocate General, of Government of A.P., and the writ petitioner as its Counsel, to represent and put forward its case before the Supreme Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2001 in O.S. No. 1 of 1997, filed by the State of Karnataka. The fee payable to different Counsel, engaged through the said G.O., was stipulated by another order, being G.O. Ms. No. 198, dated 20-9-2001. Except that the quantum varied to different heads, viz., a) appearance, b) settling the pleadings, affidavits, applications etc., c) conferences, d) conferences outside Delhi, and e) expenses on account of visits to places outside Delhi. The case before the Supreme Court was ultimately closed on 3-9-2002.2. The petitioner submitted 3 separate bills on 17-11-2001, 17-1-20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »