Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Gram Panchayat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD16
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. These batch of writ petitions are filed assailing the action of second respondent/Chairman, District Water Management. Agency-cum-District Collector, Mahabubnagar, for exclusion of their villages from the list of villages sanctioned under Watershed Projects under DPAP-9th Batch, as per HARIYALI Guidelines, 2003-2004.2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by. this common order.3. A scheme has been introduced by the Central Government to develop the non-fertile agricultural lands by way of laying bunds, check dams, etc. Certain villages have been selected for grant of Water Shed Project under the scheme. All these petitioners' villages find place in the proceedings dated 9-11-2003 bearing No. D 1/650/2003 issued by the Chairman, Water Management Agency, Mahabubnagar. Subsequently, another proceedings came to be issued on 28-1-2005 bearing No. D1/650/ 2003, wherein the p...
B.V. Satish Kumar and ors. Vs. Convener, Ecet (Fdh)-2005, Jntu and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD385
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners appeared in the Engineering Common Entrance Test (ECET) conducted on 9.8.2005, with a view to seek admission in the II-Year B. Pharmacy Course for the academic year 2005-06. All of them have studied Diploma Courses in Pharmacy. They were not selected for admission into II-Year B. Pharmacy Course. Therefore, they opted to join Bio-Technology Course in the 3rd respondent-College. They were admitted in the II-Year of Bio-Technology Course against the Management Quota. However, their admissions were cancelled through a letter, dated 9.8.2005, issued by the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent. They challenge the cancellation of their admission.2. Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that according to the Instructions Booklet issued by respondents 1 and 2, candidates who have passed Diploma in Pharmacy are entitled to be admitted into the II-Year of B. Pharmacy and Bio...
Arunachala Logistic (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST590(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Special Standing Counsel for the Department and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.2. Rule nisiThe petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') on the rolls of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The assessing authority having finalised the assessment of profession tax for the year 2001-02, passed the orders, dated March 31, 2005, requiring the petitioner to pay the profession tax at Rs. 750 per annum on each of the vehicle numbering 88 owned by the petitioner. The authority accordingly required the petitioner to pay the profession tax at the rate of Rs. 750 per vehicle. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred revision under Section 16 of the Act challenging the correctness of the assessment order. The p...
T. Nadipi Masum Saheb Vs. Tamidala Rama Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT104
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31-1-2005 in LA. No. 67 of 2004 in A.S. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, extending the time fixed by the Lok Adalat.2. The undisputed facts are that the parties herein have settled A.S. No. 17 of 2000 before the Lok Adalat on 7-8-2004 for Rs. 99,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of the decree. The respondents herein have paid the amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the revision petitioner on the same day and Rs. 10,000/- on 23:9-2004, and Rs. 9,000/- remained unpaid before the due date. The revision petitioner refused to accept the balance amount as it was not paid within the stipulated time. Hence, the respondents herein approached the Court of Senior Civil Judge by way of LA. No. 67 of 2004 in A.S. No. 17 of 2000 and sought extension of time granted by the Lok Adalat. The learned Judge granted extension of time till 5-2-2005 to pay the amount of Rs. 9,000/-.3. Heard learned Counse...
Vagicheria Murali Krishna Vs. Palleboyina Seshaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT175
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner's petition seeking eviction of the respondent from a non-residential premises at Kavali was allowed by the Rent Controller but was dismissed by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the respondent. Hence this revision by the landlord.2. The admitted facts are, including the premises let out to respondent, petitioner is the owner of four non-residential premises. All of them are in the occupation of tenants. Revision petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that he requires it for his business he intends to carry on in fancy goods and stainless steelware.3. The case of the respondent is that the requirement, of the revision petitioner, of the building in his occupation is not bona fide and is only intended to seek enhancement in the rent.4. As per Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') a landlord who is not occupying a non-residential buildin...
Kapala Sankar Rao Vs. Kapala Usharani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD327; 2005(6)ALT555; I(2006)DMC563
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 29-6-2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No. 578 of 2001 filed by the respondent herein under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C., wherein and whereby the Court below permitted the respondent to institute the suit as an indigent person.2. The O. P. was purported for cancellation of decree of divorce dated 2-5-1990 in O.S. No. 13 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, Orissa, allegedly obtained by fraudulent means and for maintenance.3. The genesis of the decree which is sought to be cancelled and the merits thereof are not relevant for the present to decide the issue involved in this appeal.4. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and petitioner in O.P.No. 578 of 2001. For convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.5. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contends that the trial Court was in ser...
Dr. V. Sundara Rao and ors. Vs. Director, Town and Country Planning, G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD525; 2006(3)ALT570
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Questioning the permission given to the 4th respondent by the 3rd respondent Municipality for construction of 24 apartments consisting of stilt and five floors, in a site measuring 618.66 square yards in Kanchirajuvari Street, Tanuku, petitioners filed this petition.2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are all residents of Kanchirajuvari Street, which is also known as Babugari Street, and connects Rashtrapathi Road on the North and Sthree Samajam Road on the South. The width of Kanchirajuvari Street varies from 1'7'6' to 19'6', including the open land and drainage channel constructed on the road margins on its both sides. Respondents 1 to 3 refused permission to M/s. B.S.R. Constructions to construct 30 apartments with stilt, ground and 4 floors in about 610 square meters of site in Kanchirajuvari Street, opposite to the house of the 1st petitioner on the ground of the road width being less than the mandatory 40 feet. Though the width of the...
Smt. Monika Vs. Arun Sarkar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD324; 2005(6)ALT764; I(2006)DMC647
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No. 118 of 2003, dated 23rd June, 2005, on the file of Family Court at Hyderabad, in granting divorce.3. The wife is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein, are referred to as 'wife' and 'husband'.4. Facts in brief are that the husband filed O.P.No. 118 of 2003, seeking divorce of the marriage on the ground of cruelty alone.5. It appears that the marriage was solemnized on 15-4-2001. After the marriage the couple set off for honeymoon to Ooty and the marriage actually was consummated during honeymoon. It is averred by the husband that during the honeymoon period, the wife started being disinterested in the marital life. Sometimes, it was alleged that she was moody and she used to withdraw from the association of the husband. After enquiries about the above attitude, the wife allegedly informed that the marriage was against her will. In view of the ...
B. Balaiah and ors. Vs. Station Commandant and Executive Officer and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD407
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Challenging the impugned notices dated 16.8.2005, the present writ petition is filed.2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of their respective properties mentioned in the writ petition and they have been enjoying the same by paying property taxes to the concerned. While so, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notices dated 16.8.2005 under Section 4(1)(b)(ii) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to show-cause why the petitioners should not be evicted from the subject property. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when there is prima facie evidence to show that the premises in question belong to the Government, then only the provisions under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act) have to be invoked and as there is bona fi...
Garlapati Lakshmana Swamy Vs. Superintendent and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD303
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Questioning the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No. 30(4) pol/04, dated 12.8.2005 impounding the passports of the petitioners bearing Nos. B3402473, dated 15.2.2001 and A556720, dated 26.4.1991 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the copy of the complaint does not show that the second petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 499 of 2003 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and therefore, the impugned proceedings suffers from serious infirmities.3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that an efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available with the Chief Passport Officer against the orders passed by the first respondent, and the petitioners herein without availing the said alternative remedy of appeal available to them, they straightaway come to this Court through this writ petition, an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »