Andhra Pradesh Court November 2006 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.
Darus Salam Educational Trust Rep. by Its Trustee, Syed Shah Akbar Niz ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD73
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. W.P.No.14048 of 2006 is filed by Darus Salam Educational Trust seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms.No.54, Higher Education (EC) Department dated 10.5.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.59, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26.5.2006 and the proceedings of the first respondent- Government of Andhra Pradesh in letter No. 2973/EC/2/2006-1 dated 20.6.2006 as arbitrary, illegal amounting to colourable exercise of power and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : AIR2003SC355 and for consequentially setting aside the rules framed in the above said G.Os., particularly Rules 3, 5 and 6 and proceedings of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to manage and administer the educational institut...
Telladarla Obanna @ Obaiah Vs. the Secretary to Government of Andhra P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD77
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 751 Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, dated 28.8.1991, as illegal, mala fide, politically motivated at the instance of respondents 7 and 8, and being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. A consequential direction is also sought to forbid the respondents from proceeding in any manner in pursuance of the said proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 12.3.2004. The petitioner filed application being WPMP No. 19283 of 2005 seeking to set aside the order dismissing the writ petition for default. By an order dated 12.7.2005, this Court restored the matter. That is how the matter is again appeared before this Court.2. The land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in survey No. 165/3 situated at Kolumulapalli village of Chinthakomma (CK) Dinne Mandal in Kadapa District was assigned to Obaiah on 20.6.1961. Obaiah allegedly cultivated the land till 19...
Sd. HussaIn Vs. Shaik Nazeer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1396
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioners seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in P.R.C. No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.2. The petitioners are the accused along with two others in P.R.C. No. 1 of 2003 and have been arrayed therein as A1 to A3 respectively. A private complaint was filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioners and two others alleging inter alia the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC').3. The complainant has been working as Head Constable at Kothagudem Police Station in Khammam District. A2 is his maternal uncle and father-in-law. A1 is the second son of A2. A5 is the wife of the complainant. A3 is the brother-in- law of the second accused. A4 is neighbour and close friend of A2. A5 f...
Nimmagadda Gangadhara Rao and anr. Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by P.P., Hi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2469
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioners seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal case launched against them in C.C.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. 2. The petitioners are A4 and A5 in the said case, filed by the Food Inspector, Visakhapatnam District, on 19-06-2002.3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 18-05-2001 at about 1.10 PM the Food Inspector, Division-I, Visakhapatnam District, visited P.M.P. Stores, situate at MIG-I-518, Main Road, Pothina Mallaiahpalem, accompanied by his attender. A1 was found transacting business at that time. He then called, one, Vaddada Raveendra Kumar, in whose presence he inspected the stores and found four packets of three mangoes, special standard grade cycle brand chilli powder which were kept for sale for human consumption along with other food articles. Each packet contained a label printed thereon with the ...
Tammineni Ramesh Naidu Vs. Giri Lakshma Swamy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD410; 2007(1)ALT430
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1996 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in AS No. 111/1993 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Munsif, Chintalapudi in OS No. 147/1988 dated 13.9.1993 in decreeing the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the original defendant No. 2 filed the second appeal.3. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as per their array in the original suit.4. The plaint averments in brief are that the defendants are agriculturists and also doing business in mangoes and are residents of Chintalapudi. For the purpose of business and family expenses, to meet the educational needs, the 1st defendant who is the father of defendants 2 and 3 expressed his intention to sell the schedule mentioned property for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. On 25.4.1987 an agreement of...
G.V. Triveni Prasad Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD713; 2007(1)ALT491; (2007)IILLJ685AP
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Transfer is not a condition of service, but is merely an incidence of service. An employee, who joins service of an employer having establishments or offices all over India, can be posted in any part of the country and he cannot be heard to complain against transfer from one place to the other. If he fails to comply with or disobeys the order of transfer/posting, he does so at his own peril. Ordinarily, the Court will not interfere with the employer's prerogative to transfer and post an employee from one place or station to the other unless it is established that the action of the employer is contrary to the statutory provisions or is vitiated due to patent arbitrariness or mala fides. This proposition must be treated as settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court in B. Varadha Rao v. Stale of Karnataka : (1986)IILLJ516SC , Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas : (1993)IILLJ626SC , Public Services Tribunal Ba...
Akula Bhagiraraju and ors. Vs. Padala Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD322
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Chakravarthy, learned Counsel representing appellants and Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned Counsel representing respondents.2. This second appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 54 of 1988 on the file of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 1669 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry.3. One Akula Bhagiraju, who is no more, as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1669 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry, against the respondents herein and defendants in the suit, praying for a declaration of right of passage over 'A.B.C.D' marked portion of the plaint schedule property as per the plaint plan and for mandatory injunction for removal of the obstruction caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs right of way over 'ABCD' marked portion and for costs of the suit.4. The Court of first instance, on the respective pleadings of the parties h...
Chintala Uday Shankar and ors. Vs. Subedar Saheb Choultry, Trust Board ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD213
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2003 passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1994 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.(a) The appellants are Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 in the suit O.S. No. 6 of 1994 filed by the first respondent herein, the fifth defendant is the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, who is the second respondent herein and the seventh defendant died, who is the third respondent herein, and his legal representatives were not brought on record in the suit. The suit was originally filed by M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry Trust Board represented by its President - Md. Raheem Khan and thereafter the name of Md. Raheem Khan was deleted and the proposed President Md. Kareem Khan was added as per orders in I.A. No. 27 of 2002 dated 4-2-2002 in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration of the title deeds obtained by the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 registered on 12-6-1945 in respect of the plaint schedule property as void, unenfor...
Savara Pydi Raju and ors. Vs. T. Venkata Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2246; 2007(3)ALD171; 2007(2)ALT605
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-3rd respondent.2. Since these appeals arise out of one and the same accident as well as the common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. In all these cases, claims have been made by the claimants seeking compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), on account of the accident occurred on 02-06-1996 at 4.30 a.m. at Nepal.4. The vehicle involved is a Tourist bus bearing No. TN-01-N-297, which is one and the same in all the claim petitions and during the course of Tour, the accident occurred at Nepal.5. The case of the claimants is that all the passengers were Tourists and it was a Tourist bus, which was booked for the purpose of Tour. They started their journey from Vizianagaram for the purpose of Tour in the said Tourist bus and, therefore, though the...
Mukarram Jah Trust for Education and Learning Vs. Assistant City Plann ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD11; 2007(1)ALT575
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The matter is coming up for admission today. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had taken notice on 8.11.2006 for the purpose of getting instructions. The learned Counsel states that it is true that No Objection Certificate from Revenue Authorities cannot be insisted upon and the Municipal Corporation is concerned only with TSLR and not No Objection Certificate. The learned Standing Counsel also would submit that the building permit fee as required under B.B. 5.2 of 1981 had not been remitted.2. Sri R. Raghunandan, learned Counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to comply with the remitting of the building permit fee as required under B.B. 5.2 of 1981. The learned Counsel also would submit that TSLR is not the only criterion and the other documents also may have to be considered, but even otherwise the petitioner is prepared to produce the TSLR as required.3. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »