Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Tripuraneni Sri Prasad Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)643; I(2007)BC288
M. Venkateswara Reddy, J.1. All these three petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by one T. Sai Prasad, who is the sole accused in C.C. Nos. 230, 229 and 264 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram respectively, seeking quashing of the complaints in all the three cases.2. All the three cases arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The original complainants in C.C. Nos. 230 of 2004 and 264 of 2004 was one Chennappa. After filing of the complaints, he died on 7.8.2004. While in C.C. No. 229 of 2004 the complainant is one Ranga Sreenivasulu, who is the son of the above said deceased Chennappa. In the C.C. Nos. 230 and 264 of 2004 the above said Ranga Sreenivasulu came on record as the legal representative of the deceased Chennappa as per the orders dated 12.10.2004 made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3392 of 2004 (in C.C. No. 230 of 2004) and Criminal Miscellaneous P...
Gulam ShameemuddIn Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD82; 2006(2)ALT267
M.E.N. Patrudu, J 1. Facts This is a case of desertion.The deserter is a Constable working in Andhra Pradesh Police.Long unauthorized absence leading to disciplinary action resulted in dismissal of the deserter from service.Being aggrieved, the deserter approached the State Administrative Tribunal.The Tribunal confirmed the orders of dismissal.The legality of the said order is now questioned.The deserter is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner.Admitted Facts:2. The appointment of petitioner as Police Constable in June, 1979 and his subsequent training, posting, regularization, probation.3. Admittedly, he was absent from duty during 10.6.1987 to 22.1.1989 and it is continuous without applying or sanction of any kind of leave.Case of Petitioner:4. He was absent due to sickness as he developed chest pain on 10.6.1987 and he obtained sick passport from the concerned Inspector of Police and was treated at Osmania General Hospital from 10.6.1987 to 10.8.1987 and as directed he used to m...
Manoj Mirror Industries Vs. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD205; 2006(2)ALT363
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of different orders passed by the authority, under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act), For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 27385 of 2005.2. The petitioner is an industry. The second respondent presented a claim before the first respondent, which was taken up as S.E.No. 33 of 2003, claiming the various service benefits, totaling to Rs. 2,75,250/-, under various heads, for the period commencing from 1995. The petitioner pleaded that the second respondent joined its service, only in the year 2001, as Sales Representative, and that he did not work with them, prior to that period. It was also urged that the petitioner did not terminate the service of the respondent, and on the other hand, the latter left the service, as he secured better employment.3. The enquiry into the application made by the second respondent commenced, and witnesses have ...
G. Subrahmanyam Vs. Executive Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD557
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was engaged as an NMR worker in the S.G.S Arts College Hostel, Tirupati, which is part of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short 'Devasthanams'), with effect from 1-7-1976. Thereafter, he was appointed/promoted as a Clerk, with effect from 1-4-1978, and the same was ratified on 15-4-1978. Petitioner was promoted as Manager, in the cadre of Senior Assistant, through a resolution of the Hostel Committee, dated 21-3-1991. On 3-6-1991, the Board of Trustees of the Devasthanam (for short 'the Board') ratified the promotion of the petitioner. The 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 9-12-2004, pointing out that the promotion of the petitioner, as Manager, was irregular, inasmuch as the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualifications, and he was directed to show-cause as to why he shall not be reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23-12-2004. The 1st respondent issued proceedings ...
H.V. Rajeshwari Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Manager Crpf ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD99; 2006(3)ALT489
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges orders, dated 4.8.1999 and 21.9.1999, passed by the respondent herein, through which the purported resignation of the petitioner was accepted. Direction for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and extension of consequential benefits, is also prayed for.2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Teacher in Mathematics in CRPF School, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, in October 1996. Her services were regularized, on successful completion of probation, through order, dated 23.12.1998. According to the petitioner, she was victimized and ill-treated by one Mr. Maihew Joseph, ever since he assumed the charge as Additional D.G.P. and Additional Manager of the School. It is alleged that he went on issuing memos, one after the other, on slightest of the pretexts. It is stated that a letter of resignation was forcibly extracted from her on 21.6.1999, and that she has immediately protested against the course of action, adopted by...
T. Padma Vs. Anreddy Sai Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD71; 2006(3)ALT409
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondents were served and none represents the respondents.2. This Court, ordered notice before admission on 22-12-2005 and granted interim stay, which was in fact extended even subsequent thereto.3. Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, which had been pleaded in the plaint, the issuance of notice to the opposite party for production of original document in question may not arise. The learned Counsel specifically pointed out to the relevant paras in the plaint at paras-6 and 7 and would maintain that in the light of the proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'), such notice may not be necessary and in the light of said provision, the applicability or otherwise of Order XII Rule 2 of CPC needs no serious conside...
G. Swaroopa Rani Vs. Central Bank of India, Hanamkonda Branch and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD116; 2006(3)ALT486
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 10-11-2005. The first respondent, Central Bank of India, Hanamkonda Branch, the plaintiff in the suit, the only contesting respondent had been served. None respondents R.I.2. G. Swaroopa Rani, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 2003, on the file of III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal had raised an objection for the marking of three documents as promissory notes dated 6-8-1996, 3-5-1999 and 30-3-2000. The objections raised were two fold that these documents are not stamped as under provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). Yet another objection is that they are not properly cancelled under Section 12(3) of the Act. The learned Judge, in the light of the decision of this Court in Gurana Asirinaidu v. Lenka Suryanarayana : 2005(1)ALD713 , came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the revis...
Rusumu Seshaiah Vs. State Election Commission of Andhra Pradesh and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD598; 2006(6)ALT131
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This common order shall dispose of all these five writ petitions, which were heard on 27.1.2006 except W.P. No. 1888 of 2006, which was heard on 1.2.2006. The submissions made and the point for consideration are the same, and therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the matters by common order.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 243K of the Constitution of India (CoI) and the powers conferred under Sections 13(2), 14(2) and 201 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) read with Rule 4(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 (the Rules, for brevity), the State Election Commission (SEC) of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification No. 239/SEC-B2/2005 dated 18.1.2006 calling upon the registered voters of considerable number of Gram Panchayats in as many as sixteen (16) districts of Andhra Pradesh to elect Members/Sarpanches for casual vacancies in their respective Gram Panchayats. The SEC also notified the election schedule....
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs. T. Bhaskar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD284; 2006(2)ALT450
M.E.N. Patrudu, J. 1. PrayerThe petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal of the State, (hereinafter referred as Tribunal') in O.A. No. 4461 of 2003, dated 28.1.2005.Impugned order2. To consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Superintendent without reference to the charge memo, with all consequential benefits.Facts3. The facts to the extent necessary are:4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh the petitioner herein is the respondent in the O.A.5. Mr. T. Bhaskar Rao, a Senior Assistant in the Forest Range Office of Adilabad, the respondent herein is the applicant in the O.A.6. The petitioner vide Re. No. 21904/ 2002/P1, dated 20.11.2002 issued a charge memo to the respondent and placed him under suspension on an allegation that the respondent was negligent in making entries in the cash register without proper scrutiny.7. The respondent submitted his explanation on 31.12.2002....
Merla Narayudu (Died) Per L.R. and anr. Vs. M. Bramaramba and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT730
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Rama Mohan, Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Nagesh, Counsel representing the respondents.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, plaintiffs in the suit, filed O.S.No.4/89 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram praying for the relief of partition. The learned Judge on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the Issues recorded the evidence of P.W.1, D.W. 1 to D.W.4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 and ultimately passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs effecting partition of plaint A Schedule property into 180 shares according to good and bad qualities and allotting 16 shares to the 1st plaintiff and 76 shares to the 2nd plaintiff respectively and ordering delivery of the same separately to them and also ordering partition of plaint B Schedule property into 540 shares according to good and bad qualities and allotting 16 shares to the 1st plaintiff and 76 shares to the 2nd plaintiff respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »