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.
K. Munirathnam Vs. D. Bhaskar Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD486
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 233 of 2002, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decree on 7-1-2003. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the decree, the respondent filed E.P.No. 33 of 2003. The respondent prayed for arrest of the petitioner, pleading that though the latter had sufficient means to comply with the decree, he is deliberately avoiding to do so. The petitioner resisted the E.P. Through its order, dated 5-2-2004, the executing Court recorded a finding that the petitioner had sufficient means, but he is evading to satisfy the decree. Accordingly, it directed arrest of the petitioner and detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.2. Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client does not have the means to satisfy the decree. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in K. Harikrishna v. Dr. L. Ragh...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Inspector General, S.W.S. Central Industrial Securit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD687
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner was joined the respondents-Central Industrial Security Force as Constable in 1983. While he was working as such, he was charge-sheeted for an incident that occurred on 24.12.1989. An enquiry was conducted into the charges, and they having been stood proved either partially or fully, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide orders dated 31.7.1990 of the disciplinary and appellate authority. Assailing the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 16765 of 1991, which by order dated 26.7.1999 was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted to the respondents for reconsideration of the matter with respect to proportionality of the punishment.2. Pursuant to the order in the writ petition, the disciplinary and appellate authority passed fresh orders dated 29.9.1999 modifying the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the petitioner to that of reinstatement into service with reduction of pay to the minimu...
T. Shyam Sunder Vs. Dr. N. Jayanth Kumar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)640; 2006CriLJ2386
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri K. Dhanunjay, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. The petitioner filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 51 of 2002, dated 28-3-2002 of P. S. Adilabad II Town.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is doing business in purchase and selling of shares and he is the managing director of Eshwara Securities Limited, Hanrnakonda and respondent No. 1 is a Medical Practitioner running a Nursing Home under the name and style of 'Anil Nursing Home' of Mulkanoor village of Bhimdevarapally Mandal of Karimnagar District. The petitioner had a transaction of purchase and sale of shares in the name of respondent No. 1 and his family members under his authorization and at that time respondent No. 1 herein raised some disputes with regard to the accounts relating to the said transaction. It is also state...
Dr. Raj Laboratories and anr. Vs. the State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)987; 2006CriLJ2365
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. First petitioner is the firm engaged in manufacturing tablets by name 'Furazolidone, 100 mg. tablets used as anti-diarrhocal, and the second petitioner is its proprietor. They filed this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 342 of 2001 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16(1) and Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case are that on 4-5-2000 the Drugs Inspector, Amalapuram seized the Furazolidone tablets 100 mg. Batch No. FUR 2001; manufactured dated 1/2000, expiry date 12/2002 manufactured by the petitioners from the area hospital, Amalapuram and sent the samples to the Government Analyst, Vijayawada, who in his report, dated 19-8-2000 declared the said sample as 'not of standard quality' as it does not meet the I. P. S...
P. Sivanandam Vs. Sri Srinivasa Marketing Co. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)526; I(2007)BC421
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 182/99 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and Accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 181/99 on the file of the self-same Court filed these Criminal Petitions praying for quashing of the said proceedings.2. The 1st respondent Mr. Srinivasa Marketing Company filed private complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience. Several averments were made in relation to the mediation at the settlement and it was stated that in pursuance thereof the cheque in question was issued by Accused No. 2 alone. It is no doubt staled that the other accused are in a way responsible to see that the payment is made.3. Mr. Prakash Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioncrs/A-4 would maintain that there is no averment that the firm in question is a registered firm and hence the complaint itself is not maintainable. The learned Counsel also would further maintain t...
Malireddy Rajasekhara Reddy and ors. Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD564
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners challenge the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short 'the Act') initiated by the respondents herein in respect of the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos. 234/1B, 234/3 and 236/1, admeasuring Ac.2.80 cents of Lingavaram village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District.2. The lands of the petitioners, together with the neighbouring lands in Sy.Nos. 234/1B, 234/2, 3, 236/P and 237/A were proposed to be acquired in the year 1985. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 1376 of 1986 insofar as the proceedings related to their lands. The writ petition was allowed on 9.3.1987 and the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were quashed, on the ground that they were not published in the locality. However, it was left open to the respondents to acquire the lands, by issuing a fresh notification. It is in this context that the respondents issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 25.10.1994 and a declaration under Section...
Ananthula Chandrakala Vs. Karim Gulam HussaIn Lalani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP195; 2006(2)ALD793; 2006(3)ALT190
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 17-11-2005 and granted an order of interim suspension, Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had entered appearance.2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order made in C.M.A. No. 65/2004 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order made in LA. No. 501/2003 in O.S.No.269/2003 on the file of n Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had preferred the present civil revision petition.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 2,78,022/-with other ancillary reliefs praying for passing of a preliminary decree in relation to the mortgaged property shown in the plaint schedule. The respondent herein as plaintiff, moved two applications i.e., I.A.No.500/2005 and I.A.No.501/2005 in the aforesaid suit praying for temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ respondent/defendant from causing any damage to the suit property ...
M. Rajagopal Reddy Vs. State Bank of India, Adb, Govindaraopet Branch ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP264; 2006(3)ALD469; 2006(2)ALT717
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 11-11-2005. Sri A. Ravinder, the learned Counsel who had lodged caveat on behalf of the Court auction purchaser-R.2, had taken notice. On behalf of Rule 1-decree holder, Sri K.V. Subramanya Narsu, the learned Counsel had entered appearance. While ordering notice before admission on 11-11 -2005 this Court also made the following order.Both the learned Counsel have brought to my notice that E.P.No.239 of 1998 has been posted for delivering of open plot on 14-11-2005. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner,Smt. M. Bhaskara Laxmi, the petitioner is very much residing in the building built in the open plot. In these circumstances, the Court below is directed to proceed further with the delivery proceedings and the delivery of the open plot shall be handed over to the auction purchaser without disturbing the possession of the petitioner herein in the construction made in the said plot.At the request of the co...
D. Neetha Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD5; 2006(3)ALT611
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, the 2nd respondent herein, issued notification, calling for applications for appointment of Dealers to various Fair Price Shops, in Nizamabad Town. The petitioner submitted her application. The 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner as dealer, for shop No. 71. The petitioner was issued authorization, by the competent authority on 12-4-1994. Respondents 5 to 10 herein, who were not selected for any Fair Price Shop, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent, challenging the appointment of dealers to various Fair Price Shops. The selected candidates were not made parties in the appeal. Through his order dated 20-2-1995, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the petitioner as well as several other dealers. He directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a test and select the candidates for the respective shops, on merits.2. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 4509 of 1...
Ch. Vijaya Mohan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, (H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD1; 2006(2)ALT482; 2006CriLJ1912
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a Tanker bearing No. AP 16-U-4694. While the said vehicle was transporting liquor from Madras to Yeddumailaram in Medak District, it was intercepted and seized on 13. 6.1995 at B.V. Palam Village, Nellore District on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in an offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Subsequently, having conducted due enquiry by order dated 24.1.2000, the vehicle in question was confiscated and the same was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 18.3.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 22245 of 2001. Though this Court declined to interfere with the order of confiscation, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the application of the petitioner for compounding the offence in accordance with the provisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »