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.
D. Ramesh Babu Vs. Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Admini ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD64; 2005(3)ALT612
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. By a common order dated 06-04-2004, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed three (3) vacate miscellaneous applications (VMA) Nos. 935, 943 and 905 of 2003 in OA No. 7237 of 2003. VMA No. 935 was filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents herein; VMA 943 was filed by one Sri M. Narasimha Ramulu, Town Planning Officer (Ordinary Grade) of Gaddiannaram and VMA 905 of 2003 was filed by the writ petitioner.2. O.A. No. 7237 of 2003 was initially filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein and five others, aggrieved by the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 485, dated 01-11-2002 and G.O.Ms. No. 450, MA&UD;, dated 01-10-2003. On 07-11-2003 the Tribunal granted an interim order directing the official respondents not to take further action pursuant to the two impugned G.Os. On 10-11-2003 the interim order initially granted was modified, directing the official respondents to maintain status quo as on 07-11-2003 recruiting the three Town Planning ...
Thudimella Lakshminarayana and anr. Vs. Thummala Narasaiah Naidu and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP357; 2005(3)ALD804
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Mahadeva, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Somakonda Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. The substantial questions of law raised in the present second appeal as per the order made on 21-3-1997 are:(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction can be entertained after a long lapse of the construction of the hut in question for removal of the same?(B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case can the Court below substitute the Advocate Commissioner report and Mandal Surveyor report so far as the free ingress and egress of the plaintiffs without there being any objections filed by the plaintiffs to the said report?(C) Whether the Court below is right in shifting the burden on the defendants on the face of Section 101 of the Evidence Act?(D) Whether the order in appeal is sustainable in view of the judgment reported in : AIR1969AP368 without there bein...
Chekuru Lakshmaiah Vs. Gotti Gundal Venkarami Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD100
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. C. Vani Reddy, Counsel for the appellant and Sri D. Sethurami Reddy, Counsel for the 1st respondent.2. On 4-8-1997 this Court made the following order:'Admitted on the question whether the finding that the defendant was not in possession is contrary to the admission in the document filed by the defendant, namely, adangal register. Status quo as on today shall be maintained.'3. The unsuccessful Defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 22/93 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Gudur, reversing the judgment in O.S. No. 329/84 on the file of District Munsif, Gudur had preferred the present second appeal. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is shown as not a necessary party. The main contention which had been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that despite the fact that Ex.B-5 clearly shows the factum of possession, not placing reliance on Ex.B-1 and the ...
Penkey Konda Vs. Sorapalli Zedson Moses and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD789; 2005(4)ALT144
R. Subhashreddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada (for short 'the Tribunal below'), passed in M.V.O.P. No. 104 of 2000, dated 19-4-2004.2. The said claim petition was filed by the appellant herein under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 18-9-1999.3. As stated in the claim petition, it was the case of the claimant that he was working as a jattu coolly in Koramandal Company Limited at Kakinada. On 18-9-1999, while he was returning along with other co-workers from the Company and when they reached Nadakuduru, the offending lorry bearing No. ABK-144 was driven by its drive...
K. Manikyam Vs. Smt. P. Parvathi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)760; I(2006)BC339; [2005]126CompCas884(AP); 2005CriLJ3404
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is accused in C. C. No. 431 of 2002 on the file of the court of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, 'the Act') as amended by the Banks, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said calendar case on the ground that no offence under Section 138 of the Act is disclosed in the complaint filed by the first respondent on the file of the court of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate where C. C. No. 431 of 2002 is pending adjudication.2. The fact of the matter is this. The husband of the first respondent and the accused are friends. The accused requested the husband of the first respondent by name Janardhana Rao to join as a member of chit in M/s. Vishishta Finance and Chit Fund Co. Ltd., Warangal. Janardhana Rao joined in Chit No. VFCIP-IA/31...
Thota Venkateshwara Prasad Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD435; 2005(3)ALT115; 2005(2)CTLJ178(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.PART-1INTRODUCTION:The Government of Andhra Pradesh authorised the Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Limited (APTS - a Public Sector Company fully owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh) (for short 'APTS'), to take up the Andhra Pradesh Broadband Network Project through a public private partnership, whereby investment in such a network would essentially be made by the private sector. The APTS, accordingly initiated a two-stage process, first inviting companies/consortia to express their interest in response to Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) and then to file proposals in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP).2. Accordingly, the APTS invited companies/consortia to finance, design, build and operate a new Broadband network in the State of Andhra Pradesh, either by themselves or through setting up of a Joint Venture (JV) with APTS, in which APTS would hold a minor part of the equity. It was made clear that Andhra Pradesh Broadband Project wou...
K. Ganapathi and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD718; 2005(3)ALT652
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioners are 25 in number. Except Petitioner Nos.15, 16 and 17, all other petitioners claim to be small farmers owning small extents of land ranging between Ac.0-10 gts. and Ac.2-24 gts. in Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, either on the strength of pattas or possession or purchase. The further claim that they constructed houses in the said lands and are living therein, and that there are near about 500 houses in the said area. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that Respondent No. 1-District Collector, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') seeking to acquire the lands mentioned therein, for a public purpose, namely for construction of New Sewerage Treatment Plants (STPs) 25 MLD Capacity, and further dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A invoking the urgency Clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is this notification, which the petitioners seek to challenge in this wri...
Mylarapu Mallamma Vs. Mylarapu Saroja and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD24; 2005(4)ALT6
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. When the vacate petition is taken up for hearing both the parties requested to dispose of the main appeal. At their request, CMA itself is taken up for hearing. Heard both sides.2. The unsuccessful petitioner in the Court below preferred this CMA against the order and decree dated 6-10-2004 passed in OP No. 373 of 2001 by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.3. The relevant facts shorn of details for disposal of appeal lies in a narrow compass and briefly stated as under:4. The petitioner is undisputedly first wife of the deceased Mylavardpu Rayamallu who was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani till his death on 21-12-1997. He left behind the appellant/petitioner and his mother, who died on 8-7-2001. On the death of Rayamallu, appellant/petitioner approached the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of gratuity amount in Claim Application No. 20/ 99 and the same was adjudicated in favour of the appella...
Sk. Yaseen Ahmed Vs. Secretary Railway Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD357
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J 1. The batch of writ petitions are filed assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad passed in O.A. Nos. 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 of 2003 and O.A. No. 619 of 2004. The writ petitioners have challenged the charged memos dated 22.8.2003 issued to them individually by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners questioned the respective charge memos before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by riling individual Original Applications. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos. 1374 of 2003 and Batch by a common order dated 13.7.2004. The learned Tribunal by a separate order dated 22.7.2004 also dismissed O.A. No. 619 of 2004 on the ground that the same was connected case to O.A. No. 1374 of 2003 and Batch.2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.3. Facts of the case, in brief, leading to filing of these w...
Golkonda Engg. Enterprises Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD325
N.V. Ramana, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant, namely M/s. Golkonda Engg Enterprises Limited, has filed this application praying to appoint a sole Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes, which arose out of the agreement, between it and the respondent, namely M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.2. In response to the Tender Notification No. MTNL/20-80(66)/2003-2004/ 2003-MM/PIJF, dated 21-8-2003, issued by the respondent for supply of 400 Pair/0.5(a) PIJF Cables for the year 2003-2004, the applicant submitted its tender. The applicant being the successful bidder in respect of a part of the tendered quantity, was called upon by the respondent to supply PIJF Cables. The Advance Purchase Order followed by Purchase Order No. AGM(MM-II)/MM-128/PUF CABLE/PO/2003-2004/8, dated 17-12-2003, issued by the respondent were received by the applicant at their Registered Office at Secunderabad. The applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »