Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court May 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.

May 17 2005

Dadi Veerahadra Rao Vs. Returning Officer, Constituency No. 32, Anakap ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: May-17-2005

Reported in: AIR2005AP428; 2005(4)ALD485

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Government Pleader for GAD and HMA, Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao and Sri Upendra Chakravarthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 respectively.2. Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 contested in the elections held to a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the 32-Anakapalli Assembly Constituency. The Election notification was published on 24.3.2004 notifying the dates for filing nominations, scrutiny of the nominations, withdrawal of nominations, poll day for casting votes and the date of declaration of results. The last date for filing nominations was notified as 31.3.2004, the date of scrutiny of nominations was 2.4.2004, the date of withdrawal of nominations was 5.4.2004 and the poll date was scheduled on 20.4.2004.3. Petitioner is the Telugu Desam Party candidate, the second respondent is the Congress Party candidate and the third respondent is an independent ...


May 10 2005

Pallava Granite Industries India Private Limited Vs. Andhra Pradesh Mi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: May-10-2005

Reported in: 2005(4)ALD230; 2005(4)ALT79; 2006(1)CTLJ55(AP)

ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent in confirming the tender No. M & S-39/VGG-SB/04 through the proceedings dated 6-5-2004 as arbitrary and illegal and to further declare that the contract is frustrated and to refund Rs. 47,82,575/- with interest.2. The petitioner is a company carrying on business of quarrying and marketing granite in domestic and international market. The respondent is the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited, an instrumentality of the State. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are briefly as follows:3. The respondent issued a tender notification on 15-4-2004 for sale of 147-675 cbm. of galaxy granite rocks from the quarry situated at R.L Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In pursuance of the tender notification the petitioner submitted its tender on 24-4-2004 by quoting the bid amount at Rs. 47,82,575/- @ $ ...


May 08 2005

Gundala Reddeppa Naidu and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2005

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)206; 2005CriLJ4702

ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioners, who are A.1, A.2, and A.4 in the Sessions Case No. 162 of 2004 pending on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor, seek to assail the charges framed against them in the said case.2. The crime in this case was registered by Irala Police Station on 2-11-2003 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC'). Eventually, after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Inspector of Police laid the charge-sheet against four accused. A.1 and A.4 are the parents of A.2 and A.3. The case against the accused was that the deceased-Patnam Chengal Reddy was family friend of A.1 to A.4, A.2 and A.3 borrowed from him in all an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. When the deceased demanded A.2 and A.3 for repayment of the amount so as to perform his daughter's marriage, the accused used to postpone the repayment. On two or three occasions, they even beat the deceased when he demanded repa...


May 05 2005

K. Valli Kumari Vs. Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), T.T. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: May-05-2005

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD611; 2005(4)ALT92

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner, whose property also is notified for acquisition, along with the properties of others, for implementation of the Master Plan at Tirumala, filed this petition questioning the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act).2. The admitted facts are, petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. 3/4, in T.S.No. 3/14 and 3/15, Ward No. 4, Block-B, West Mada Street, Tirumala, whereat she is running a Lodge. Notification dated 17.4.2003 proposing to acquire the aforesaid property of the petitioner and other properties, for implementation of the Master Plan, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published in newspapers on 20.5.2003. During enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, petitioner and others submitted their objections on 4-7-2003. Overruling the objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. Questioning the acquisition and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, petitioner filed W.P. No. 1337 of 2004 in...


May 03 2005

Chintala Bhovana Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: May-03-2005

Reported in: 2005(4)ALT1; 2006CriLJ745

ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu. He filed this writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the detenu for her release from the Central Prison, Rajahmundry after declaring her detention as illegal and void,2. The detenu is described as a 'bootlegger' indulging in possessing and selling I.D. Arrack, the consumption of which would result in grave or widespread danger to life or public health. On 27-11-2004 the first respondent passed an order under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') ordering detention of the detenu to prevent her from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner contended that the first respondent failed to(1) follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law,(2) verify the correctness of the allegations, and(3) assess wh...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial