Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Rajeti Laxmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC797
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner A-6 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34, IPC in C.C. No. 233 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, which was originally registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 497, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with 34 of IPC.2. It is the case of the petitioner-A6 that she is only concubine of A-l and having illicit intimacy with him. Even, if the allegations made in the charge-sheet are taken as true and correct, she cannot be punished for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Under Section 498A, IPC, whoever relative of the husband of the victim subjects the victim to cruelty, shall be punishable. It is stated that the action of A-1 having illicit intimacy with A-6, amounts to cruelty to L. W. 1, who is the wife of A-l, but it cannot be said that she is the relative of A-l, to attr...
Peramsetty Sri Rama Prasad Vs. Election Officer, Naidupet Mandal Paris ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD366; 2007(1)ALT303
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. W.P. No. 14031 of 2006 is filed praying for a writ of quo-warranto declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not declaring the 4th respondent of being MPTC member of the Naidupet Mandal as void as per the provisions of Section 156 read with Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, void, inoperative and accordingly, set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.2. W.P. No. 14052 of 2006 is filed praying for a writ of quo-warranto declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not declaring the 4th respondent of being MPTC member of the Naidupet Mandal as void as per the provisions of Section 156 read with Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, void, inoperative and accordingly, set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.3. The ground raised in both the writ petitions is that the 4th respondent is a member of the Agricultural Market Committee, Naidupet Mandal and it is clear dis...
Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD147; 2006(5)ALT318; [2006(111)FLR523]; (2007)ILLJ189AP
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.Nos. 8088 of 1999 and 7722 of 1999 dated 11.7.2005 whereby the punishment awarded by the labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 73 of 1988 dated 25.1.1999, was modified, the present appeals are filed by Cotton Corporation of India, the Employer. Questioning the award in I.D.No. 73 of 1988, the appellant herein had filed W.P.No. 7722 of 1999, and the respondent workman had filed W.P.No. 8088 of 1999.2. The respondent-workman, a Cotton purchase officer, was issued a charge-sheet on 28.12.1984 and the charges levelled against him therein read thus:i That Shri U. Chinnappa while functioning as Cotton Purchase Officer and posted as Center Incharge at Gudhihattanur center during the cotton season 1983-84 did not work with full devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation by not conducting/ taking experimental outturns as per the guidelines issued, and he has based his purchases with unrealistic outturns...
S. Sai Babu Vs. Director General of Fire Services and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD30
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Maintainability of the writ petition, filed against an order of the Administrative Tribunal by a person who was not a party to the proceedings, is in issue. The petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (A.P.A.T) in O.A. No. 2278 of 2005 dated 15.7.2005 filed by the 5th respondent, seeks to have the order set aside in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though he was not a party to the proceedings in O.A. 2278 of 2005.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 5th respondent was initially promoted on 20.1.1999 as an Assistant Divisional Fire Officer subject to the condition that he pass the departmental test within a period of two years as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 296 dated 14.10.1998. He was subsequently reverted for want of vacancy. He was again promoted, by order dated 16.5.2003, on the condition that he pass the Refresher/Training Course within a period of two years from the date of pro...
Medipally Pentaiah S/O Papaiah and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Off ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD99
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The land admeasuring Acs.16.92 cents of Elimineedu Village in Ranga Reddy District was owned by one Smt. Mankhala Radhamma. She filed a declaration being C.C. No. 1/3508/75 under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). As she was determined to be surplus holder, land admeasuring Acs.16.92 in survey No. 307 was taken possession by the Government, as per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad East Division. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam (MRO), assigned the land by proceedings dated 18.6.1979 to the petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 6 were assigned an extent of Acs.2.00 each whereas seventh petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.4.92 guntas. The petitioners allege that they have taken possession of the land and cultivated the land for about fifteen (15) years. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), however, issued proceedings dated 26.10.1996 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner...
Dr. A.V.S.S. Prasad Vs. Director National Institute of Technology and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD814; 2006(5)ALT732
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against order dated 2-12-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 9077, 9076, 12021 and 9086 of 2004 whereby he rejected the appellants' prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to regularise their services on the posts of Lecturers, but ordained continuance of their ad hoc appointments till the availability of regularly selected candidates.2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from the pleadings of Writ Petition No. 9077 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No. 125 of 2005.3. In furtherance of the policy formulated by the Government of India to maintain uniform standards of education in the field of Engineering and Technology, Regional Engineering Colleges were established in various parts of the country. One of the 17 Regional Engineering Colleges established in the first phase was at Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Regional Engineering Colleges were meant to provide quality education, bu...
Myla Gantaiah Vs. Kadali Peddiraju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD83
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1.The appellant challenges the judgment, dated 16-2-2006, rendered by the learned VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, in A.S. No. 31 of 2005. The said appeal arose out of an order passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in E.A. No. 296 of 2004 in E.P. No. 110 of 2004 in O.S. No. 64of 2002.2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed. After the decree became final, the respondent filed E.P. No. 110 of 2004 and obtained attachment against standing crop over the land in R.S. No. 511/4 of Vemuladeevi Village. The appellant filed E.A. No. 296 of 2004 for raising attachment. He pleaded that the land, on which the standing crop was existing, was assigned to his father and after the death of his father, he inherited it. According to him, the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short 'the Act') a...
New Matching Centre and ors. Vs. Bankatlal (Died) Per Lrs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD21
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioners are tenants, in respect of non-residential premises, owned by the deceased-1st respondent. The latter filed R.C. No. 398 of 2001, for eviction of the petitioners from the premises bearing D. No. 14-4-394, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. The application was resisted by the petitioners. Through its order dated 27-9-2003, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C., and directed eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed R.A. No. 290 of 2003, before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent-landlord died in September 2005. The petitioners did not take immediate steps, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-landlord, on record. At a subsequent stage, they filed I.A.No. 90 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 175 days, in filing an application to set...
Mekala Bhaskar Vs. Returning Officer/Dy. Director of Social Welfare De ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD175
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not declaring and granting the Election Certificate to the petitioner and declaring the 4th respondent got elected from Alum Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency, Kurnool District by suppressing the original results as highly illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, mala fide, contrary to Rules 62 and 63 of the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, Members of Mandal Parishads and Members of Zilla Parishads) Rules, 2006, hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules, and violative of the provisions of Constitution of India and consequently direct (the 1st respondent to declare the petitio...
G. Nana Goud Vs. V. Sreenivas Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD319; 2006(6)ALT7
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner and filed E.P. for recovery of the amount covered by the decree, by detaining the revision petitioner in prison or by attachment and sale of his property.2. Revision petitioner filed a counter inter alia contending that since the respondent obtained ex parte decree without serving summons on him and since he is an agriculturist and a small farmer, the decree cannot be executed against him.3. The executing Court, holding that the revision petitioner cannot simply allege that the decree was obtained behind his back and that he without producing any documentary evidence to show about his being a small farmer, oppose the execution, ordered arrest of the revision petitioner to be produced before the Court on or before 20-7-2004. Questioning the said order, the revision petitioner preferred this revision.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the E.P. is f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »