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.
Secretary and Correspondent Vs. St. Mark Ntr Gmkn and Mr.B.Ed. College ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT360
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. All the Writ Petition and Writ Appeals can be disposed of by a common Order as they are veering round for capturing the management of St. Anthony's Educational Society, Narsaraopet. There is any amount of litigation undertaken by individual parties in the guise of championing the cause of the Society, more predominantly by two persons by name B. Koteshwar Rao and G.V. Rami Reddy and they have been putting relentless fighting to take over the management of the B.Ed. College. But, however, before proceeding to the actual matrix, the necessary facts relevant for appreciating and understanding the situation is necessary, which is traced out in the paras infra.2. The St. Anthony's Educational Society, Narsaraopet came into existence in the year 1988. Initially, the president of the Society was one G. Jayanna Chowdary. It had submitted an application on 29-4-1988 to the State Government for permission to start B.Ed. college at Narsaraopet from the academic year 1988-89. ...
Associated Auto Service Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC623(AP)
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the question of law to be decided is identical in all the matters.2. Petitioners are authorised dealers for Hero Honda Motor Cycles for the Districts of Krishna, Guntur and Prakasham. They have own branches at Vijayawada, Guntur, Ongole, Piduguralla, Gudivada and Machilipatnam. It is also the case of the petitioners that they appointed as sub-dealers in these three districts. The Hero Honda Motors, New Delhi, dispatches two-wheelers of various models and also parts and accessories, in turn petitioners also despatches the required number of two-wheelers to its branches and sub-dealers for sale.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are maintaining the records in accordance with the provisions contained in the Sales Tax Act and reporting the sales turnover to the assessing authorities from time to time. In effect, the submissions of the petitioners is that they have been conducting the busine...
D. John Samuel Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, N.T.P.C. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD589; 2005(4)ALT121; (2005)IIILLJ557AP
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.12.2002 in WPNo. 21519 of 2000.2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Controller in National Thermal Power Corporation at Ramagundam on 23.3.1984. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 1.7.1987. He remained absent from duty from 1.11.1988 to 7.3.1990. He was, however, allowed to rejoin duty on 8.3.1990. By proceedings dated 25.5.1992 warning was issued to the petitioner to be careful in future. Thereafter the petitioner was denied promotion and according to him, his juniors were promoted. He filed a writ petition being WP No. 22481 of 1994. On 28.9.1998 the petitioner was transferred from Ramagundam to Kayamkulam in Kerala State. He filed a writ petition being WP No. 26155 of 1998 and the High Court granted interim stay of transfer. On 4.12.1998 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken agai...
K. Venu Madhava Reddy Vs. Joint Collector
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)15; 2005(3)ALT662
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before me.2. Petitioner is a trader. The competent authority confiscated his properties, by an order dated 3-11-2001, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground of certain irregularities. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy under Section 6-C of the Act with a delay. An application had been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay and the District Judge, on merits, had dismissed the same.3. Now the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the present writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned District Judge Ranga Reddy in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal.4. This issue is no longer res Integra. It had fallen for consideration...
K. Vimalamma and anr. Vs. Dr. M. Budhi Sagar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD122
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Challenging the order dated 28-3-2005 passed in RA No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the order dated 31-8-2004 passed in IA No. 454 of 2004 in RC No. 451 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad was confirmed, the present civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.2. The petitioner-respondent herein filed IA No. 454 of 2004 in RC No. 451 of 2003 under Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act seeking to stay all further proceedings in RC No. 451 of 2003 and to direct the respondents-petitioners herein to put him in possession of the petition schedule property and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed RA No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Rent...
Greater Visakha Medicare Educational Society and ors. Vs. Government o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD117; 2006(3)ALT554
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. All these writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that G.O. Rt. No. 216, School Education (Training-A1) Department, dated 24-3-2005 issued by the Government of AP as arbitrary, illegal and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, all the matters are heard together and decided by this common order.3. The writ petitioners are the Educational Societies which intended to establish Colleges of Education at different places in the State. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the Notifications issued in terms of the guidelines under G.O. Ms. No. 398, Education, dated 4-12-1997, the petitioner Societies have applied seeking permission to start Colleges of Education and having considered the same, the Government of AP granted No Objection Certificates to all the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the NOC granted in favour of all the institutions are valid for the academic year 20...
Syed Asgar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD877; 2005(3)ALT367; 2005CriLJ3399
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in registering a case in Crime No.115 of 2004 on the file of the Central Crimes Station, Hyderabad on a fax massage and not dropping the complaint in spite of receiving a fetter, dated 3-1-2005, from the Consulate General of India, Jeddah, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.3. The factual matrix seems to be that the petitioner was an employee of one Baharoon Development Corporation, situated at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He came to India as a citizen because of his personal reasons. After some time, a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by an authorized representative of that company for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 403, 408, 420 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad ...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by General Manager South Central Railway an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD199; 2005(3)ALT460; 2005(2)ARBLR496(AP)
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. This CMA is filed questioning the order and decree dated 4-7-2002 passed in OP No. 77 of 2001 by the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Secunderabad wherein the OP filed by the appellants herein against the award of the second respondent dated 31-12-2000 has been dismissed confirming the said award.2. The case of the appellants, as projected in the OP, is as follows:The appellants called for open tenders for the earth work from Ch.24150 M to Ch.27700 M between Dharur-Rukmapur stations in connection with doubling of tracks between Vikarabad and Tandur Sections and the first respondent submitted his tender for the said offer and the tender was finalized in strict conformity of the guidelines issued. It is stated that the said work has to be completed by 5-5-1997. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into and the parties accepted the same.3. The nature of the work includes the (SIC) (SIC) works as the variation quantities in the same stretch by the predecessor C...
Meesala Tayaramma and anr. Vs. Boggavarapu Subba Rao Choultry Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT396
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the counsel on record.2. The Second Appeal No. 261 of 1997 is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A.S.No. 59 of 1993 on file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. As against respondent No. 1 the Second Appeal was dismissed for default.3. The Second Appeal No. 214 of 1998 is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No. 54 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A.S.No. 36 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.4. Though, the appellants, in these two appeals are different, the respondent-plaintiff being common and inasmuch as these matters had been disposed of by the Court below by a common Judgment, both these Second Appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment.5. Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the Second Appeals had pointed out that the only s...
Panduga Veera Reddy Vs. Bandaru Damodar Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD620; 2005(3)ALT417
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 13 of 2002, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,26,0007- in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. He invoked the procedure under Order 37 C.P.C.2. Petitioner received summons in the suit. In the summons received by the petitioner it was indicated that he shall appear before the Court on 3-7-2002. Petitioner received the summons on 19-6-2002. He entered appearance before the trial Court on 3-7-2002. However, on realizing that the appearance ought to have been entered within ten days from the date of service of summons, he filed I.A. No. 372 of 2002, for condonation of delay of about five days.3. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 394 of 2002, seeking permission to defend the suit and to file a written statement. The trial Court rejected the application through its order dated 28-9-2004, on taking the view that the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »