Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Nangineni Radhakrishna Murthy Vs. Kanneganti Nagendramma (Died) by Lrs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD642
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant in a suit filed by the 1st respondent as an indigent person for declaration of her title to the plaint 'A' schedule properties or in the alternative for a mandatory injunction to the 1st defendant to execute a gift deed in her favour in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties. During the pendency of this appeal 1st respondent died and so respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives.2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the only daughter of 1st defendant, the adopted son of Subbaiah. At the time of her marriage, 1st defendant announced a gift of Ac.4.28 cents described in the plaint 'A' schedule (suit property) towards pasupukumkuma, as per the caste customs prevailing in the kamma community to which they belong, in the presence of witnesses and invitees to t...
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Transport, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT447
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader for Services II and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh to quash the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4994 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005.3. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent - applicant was initially appointed as a Junior Crafts Instructor on 26.12.1977 at the Industrial Training Institute, Vikarabad. He was later promoted as a Senior Instructor and thereafter selected as an Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department of the Government of A. P. He was promoted as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.2.1993. While he was working as a Motor Vehicles Inspector, at Armoor in Nizamabad District, the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) registered a case against him in Cr. No. 3/ACB-NZB/95 under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(...
State of A.P. and anr. Vs. G. Ramesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD388
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services II and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent -applicant and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh to quash the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4994 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005.3. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent - applicant was initially appointed as a Junior Crafts Instructor on 26.12.1977 at the Industrial Training Institute, Vikarabad. He was later promoted as a Senior Instructor and thereafter selected as an Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department of the Government of A.P. He was promoted as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.2.1993. While he was working as a Motor Vehicles Inspector, at Armoor in Nizamabad District, the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) registered a case against him in Cr.No. 3/ACB-NZB/95 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1...
B. Dhanamjaya Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD370; 2006(6)ALT435
B. Prakash Rao, J 1. The petitioner who is an employee of the respondent No. 2 viz. the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking writ of mandamus to declare Rule 26(i) of the Revised Pension Rules of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) as illegal, arbitrary and with further direction to the respondent No. 1 to pay all the retirement benefits treating the letter of resignation as that of voluntary retirement.2. Respondent No. 1 is the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and respondent No. 2 is the College, where the petitioner is working. Respondent No. 3 is the Devasthanam Educational Officer of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and respondent No. 4 is the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, which is impleaded subsequently.3. Heard Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Venkateshwara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Tirumala Tirumathi Devasthanam ...
Progressive Constructions Co. and ors. Vs. South Central Railway and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD570
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by a common order since substantial question involved in all these writ petitions being the same. In certain of these writ petitions, there are interim orders and in certain of these writ petitions, no interim orders are made. Learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce had opposed the passing of an interim order on the ground that there is a change of situation by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 217, dated 29.9.2004.2. The learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that in the nature of the reliefs prayed for, it would not alter the situation in any way and even otherwise subsequent to the said G.O. in certain writ petitions interim orders have been made. Inasmuch as, counter-affidavits are filed, this Court thought it fit to dispose of all these matters finally.3. Submissions at length were made by Mrs. Shoba, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned Governme...
Network Inc. Vs. K.R. Mohan Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD304; 2007(1)ALT17
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Though the matter is listed under the caption 'interlocutory', since the matter has been heard at length, with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, the main appeal itself is being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The application CCCAMP No. 239 of 2006 is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity UCPC'), seeking to receive the documents as additional evidence on record and to mark the same on behalf of the petitioner.3. The petitioner in CCCAMP No. 239 of 2006 and the appellant in CCCA No. 253 of 2004 is the plaintiff and the respondent in both the application in CCCAMP No. 239 of 2006 and CCCA No. 253 of 2004 is the defendant in the suit.4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The plaintiff is a registered firm. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on certain works undertaken by it. The defendant is a r...
Patcha Venkatarama Rao Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD275
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was a dealer of the respondent from the year 1996 onwards, to vend petroleum products at Tadepalligudem. The outlet was shifted to a different site, acquired by the petitioner, through a sale deed dated 22-10-2001 (Ex.Al). He executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent, on 17-4-2002 (Ex.A-3).2. Certain disputes arose, as regards the manner of conducting the business by the petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 14-7-2005(Ex.A-9) was issued by the respondent, and ultimately through an order dated 27-2-2006 (Ex.A-10) the respondent terminated the dealership of the petitioner.3. O.S. No. 117 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, against the respondent, for a declaration, that there does not exist any privity of contract between himself and the respondent; and for perpetual injunction, restraining the respondent and its agents from interfering with the plaint schedule property, except for the l...
D. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Dr. Mohammed Imam Hannorai and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD215
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. An interesting question arises for consideration in this C.R.P. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under:The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No. 1-4-443/A, Kavadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/-. The respondents are the owners of the same. They filed R.C.No. 58 of 1999 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, stating that the petitioner is a wilful defaulter in the matter of payment of rent, and by the time the R.C. was filed, rent for the period from 1-3-1997 to 31-12-1997 was due. They have also pleaded that the premises are required for their own occupation, since they returned from Abroad. It was also pleaded that the building is more than 50 years old, and it is in a dilapidated condition.2. The petitioner admitted that he is the tenant of the respondents. He denied the allegations as to default in payment of rent; condition of the building, and bona fide requirement. The learned I A...
Derviate Casoil Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.T.C. Ltd., Business Division and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD748
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two C.R.Ps are filed by the same petitioner, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 36 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, against the respondents herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,43,581-86 ps., on the strength of two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), dated 23-8-1990 and 31-10-1991. Respondents filed individual written-statements, disputing their liability to pay any amount. The suit is at the stage of recording of evidence of the petitioner herein.3. The respondents filed separate applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. being I.A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 2005, for amendment of the written-statements. The applications were identical, in all respects. They stated that O.S. No. 90 of 1992 was filed by them, against the petitioner herein, in the Court of 111 Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,...
V. Suseela Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD119
ORDERC.V. Nagardjuna Reddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.2. The writ petition is filed partly aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur, made in I.D. No. 108 of 1990, dated 06.12.1994, to the extent the petitioner is denied the reinstatement into service and the back wages.3. The petitioner was employed as watchman in Guntur Medical College Women's Hostel, the 2nd respondent herein, at the relevant point of time. She was drawing a monthly consolidated pay of Rs. 275/- per month. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was served with a Memo dated 29.11.1989 seeking her explanation by the Principal of the college and after receiving the petitioner's explanation, dated 03.12.1989, the Principal passed an order on 12.12.1989 warning the petitioner to be more careful in future. However, a few days later i.e., on 16.12.1989, the petitioner's services came to be terminated by the 2nd respondent with effect from 17.12.1989. It ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »