Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD499; 2005(6)ALT51; (2006)ILLJ760AP
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the Management, who filed the writ, is against the order, dated 25-9-2000, dismissing the said writ in W.P. No. 3213 of 1994, which was directed against the Award, dated 4-10-1993, passed in I.D. No. 63 of 1990 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-l, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the second respondent was working as General Mazdoor category-l in the appellant-Corporation. He sought for allotment of a residential quarter, by an application dated 1 -7-1982 for allotting the quarter D-350, III Zone, since it fell vacant due to transfer of occupant, a Watchman, Sri P. Rajaiah, however, according to him, on the express consent given by one of his officers, he got into and occupied the residential quarter No. D-350, III Zone and the house rent allowance has not been collected from him. However, the appellant has initiated action for eviction against the ...
Thuluma Mallaiah and ors. Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT54
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioners, who are claiming to be the owners of land in S.Nos. 779 and 780 of Panagal village, Nalgonda District, filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the loss sustained by them due to inundation of their land, as a consequence to the construction of a masonry structure for storage of water, by the respondents.2. From the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is seen that the petitioners, after issuing a notice claiming compensation and for removal of masonry structure constructed by the respondents, had filed O.S.No. 2099 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nalgonda, and that the same was dismissed, and that they preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 48 of 1993 to the District Court against the decree of dismissal of their suit and that the appeal was allowed with a direction to the respondents to reduce the height of the bund and pay suitable compensation to them, for the...
Shaheeda Begum Vs. Principal, Army School and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD312
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Termination of the services of the petitioners, without an enquiry being held and without the petitioners being given an opportunity of being heard, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the contentions in both the writ petitions, are more or less similar, and the respondents are common, it is appropriate that both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and a common order passed.2. It would suffice if the facts, in W.P. No. 30509 of 1997, are taken note of. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk, on 17.1.1994, in the Army School at Secunderabad. His services were confirmed on 17.7.1995. One Mrs. Helen Daniel joined as the Principal of the Army School in December, 1996/January, 1997 and, according to the petitioner, ever since then she developed an inimic...
Commandant, Cisf Unit and ors. Vs. Mahesh Chandra Sharma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT558
B. Prakash Rao, J. 1. This writ appeal is at the instance of the CISF Unit and the Home Department, who seek to assail the order, dated 30-1-2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing W.P.No. 18818 of 1988, where under the order, dated 18-5-2003, terminating the services of the respondent herein was sought to be set aside.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the respondent-writ petitioner was working as Security Guard in CISF unit and he joined duty as such on 10-6-1976. While so, the charge levelled against the respondent is that while serving with CISF, MAMC Durgapur, on 27-5-1980, he, along with 100 members of the Force, wrongfully gheraoed the Commandant, CISF Unit, MAMC Durgapur, Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, BOGL Durgapur in the office chamber of the Commandant, CISF Unit, MAMC, Durgapur in order to wrongfully force the Commandant to withdraw the suspension order of three members of the Force belonging to CISF Unit, MAMC, Durgap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›