Andhra Pradesh Court October 2007 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.
R. Subhashini Vs. District Collector, (Civil Supplies) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD678
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. On 26.10.2007, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice and requested time to get instructions. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had placed the instructions before this Court and submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, had issued notices on 12.8.2005, 3.9.2005 for hearing the case on 3.9.2005 and 19.9.2005. After considering the explanation of the dealer and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing on 3.9.2005 and finally on 17.10.2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, has cancelled her dealership vide D.Dis. No. DICS/1018/2005, dated 22.10.2005.2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the order of cancellation made is not preceded by a show-cause notice calling upon the writ petitioner to explain why the cancellation should not be effected. The learned Counsel would contend that the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to exp...
Chinni Subba Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD123; 2008(3)ALT190
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Chinni Subba Rao, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, in entertaining the representation of fourth respondent, Kotha Bala Veeraiah, as revision petition being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further prayed for declaration that the proceedings in Memo No. 36560/Endts IV(1)/2007-l dated 12.7.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, void and to set aside the same and also pass such other suitable orders.2. This Court issued rule nisi on 5.9.2007. Counter-affidavits of respondent Nos. l to 3 and respondent No. 4 had been filed. With the consent of the Counsel on record, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.3. Sri M. Radha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the writ pe...
S.M. Khasim Vali Vs. Shivaji
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD742
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.2. Respondents who obtained awards under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had during execution proceedings, sought attachment of the properties belonging to the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident. Petitioner, a third party, filed his counter in the E.Ps contending that some of the properties sought to be attached do not belong to him and belong to Wakf, and as he is not the J.Dr his properties cannot be attached. By the order under revision, the said objections were overruled. Hence these revisions.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that taking advantage of the fact that the name of the revision petitioner and the name of one of the J.Drs is the same, respondent is trying to sell the properties belonging to the revision petitioner and so the revision petitioner opposed t...
J. Gopalan Vs. K. Gopinath and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT367
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. These two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the orders dated 4.7.2001 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2007 in I.P. No. 23 of 2001 respectively.2. The above two interlocutory applications were filed by the petitioner to reopen the case for the purpose of cross-examination of witness on behalf of the petitioner and for permitting him to examine the witness by name Kannan as court witness on behalf of the petitioner respectively.3. Heard both sides.4. The orders impugned in the revision petitions were passed by the Court in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction and the Court is undisputedly subordinate to the District Court. Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (for short 'the Act') which deals with appeals reads as follows:75. Appeals (1): The debtor, any creditor, the Receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in th...
M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD70; 2007(6)ALT518
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the 2nd respondent.2. By the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 121 Law (LA&J; SC.F) Department, dated 22.8.2006, the 2nd respondent, on the recommendation of the 1st respondent notified the petitioner's retirement from service on 30.6.2006 on his attaining the age of 58 years. The 1st respondent issued a consequent order dated 22.8.2006 directing the petitioner to hand over charge of the post and to retire forthwith.3. Facts in brief:The petitioner entered the judicial service of the State in 1976 as District Munsif/Junior Civil Judge. He was promoted as a Senior Civil Judge in 1986 and appointed as a District & Sessions Judge Grade-II in 1992. He was further appointed as District & Sessions Judge Grade-I in 2000. On the recommendations of the 1st respondent the petitioner was also appoi...
R. Vithaleshwar Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Cbi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)38; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)45
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 4-4-2001 in C.C. No. 82 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act') and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 168 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. The accused was directed to undergo both the sentences concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Inspector of Police, CBI, after conducting a thorough check during the period from 1.1.1974 to 2.7.1992 found that the accused was in possessio...
The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Makam C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD147
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 98 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle filed the second appeal. The suit was filed against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,840/- with interest. The respondent was appointed as a dealer of the plaintiff, to market the textiles manufactured by them. It was pleaded that the respondent did not account for a sum of Rs. 12,840/- and that he did not pay the same in spite of the demands.2. The respondent filed written statement admitting the fact that he was appointed as a dealer. However, he pleaded that he does not owe any amount to the plaintiff and that the entire stock entrusted to him was accounted for.3. Through judgment dated 30-11-1989, the trial court decreed the suit. Thereupon the respondent filed A.S. No. 41 of 1991 in the court of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was allowed on 09-06-1997 and the decree passed by the trial court was set-aside. Hence, this second appeal.4....
In Re: Sri V. Satyanarayana Rao S/O. Sri V.C. Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALT294
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This Court by order dated 20.8.2007 initiated Suo motu contempt proceedings, in C.C. No. 754 and 755 of 2007 in W.A. No. 505 and 439 of 2007 respectively. Both the writ appeals were preferred, with the leave of the Court, by persons who, though not parties, are aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 8857 of 2007 dated 26.4.2007.2. W.P. No. 8857 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent to declare the inaction of the respondents in not giving them necessary police protection, pursuant to his complaint dated 06.04.2007, as illegal and for a consequential direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and the Station House Officer, Kukatpalli to give them police protection on the basis of their representation dated 06.04.2007. In the affidavit, filed in support of W.P. No. 8857 of 2007, the petitioner stated that Survey No. 172 of Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac. 98.10 guntas was item No. 38 of Schedu...
Sankuri Yadaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD237; 2007(6)ALT804
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by one Sankuri Yadaiah, the founder trustee of Sri Padmavathi Venkateswaraswami Temple, Kushaiguda.2. W.P. No. 984 of 2007 is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the first respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 22-12-2006 keeping in abeyance its earlier order dated 08-12-2006 wherein the proceedings against the petitioner for removal as founder trustee as well as the Chairman of the temple were dropped as arbitrary and illegal.3. W.P. No. 1364 of 2007 is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 05-12-2006 fixing rotation among the founder family members of the temple in question for considering them as Chairman of the Board of Trustees as arbitrary and illegal.4. Since both the writ petitions are based on the same set of facts, involving common questions of fact and law, they are heard together and decided by this common orders. For the sake of convenience, t...
Yogendra Builders and Anr. Vs. Vidya Paradise Owners' Welfare Associat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP31; 2008(1)ALD227; 2008(4)ALT768
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri D.V. Madhusudan Rao, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for records relating to order dated 16-6-2007 passed in LA. No. 199 of 2006 in C.C. No. 23 of 2008 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam and quash the same being violative of Section 13(4)(v) of the Consumer Protection Act, illegal, and unconstitutional and pass such other suitable orders.3. This Court ordered notice before admission on 30-7-2007 and further made the following order:Pending further orders, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings in C.C. No. 23 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Consumers Forum-II, Visakhapatnam for a period of two weeks from today.Subsequent thereto, the said interim order was extended until further orders on 14-8-2007.4. Sri Madhusudhanarao, the learned Counsel representing the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »