Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Subbarayudu Vs. Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT310; 2007CriLJ4562
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not registering the case, investigating, and submitting the report to the Magistrate pursuant to complaint, dated 14-01 -2006, as illegal and arbitrary.3. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and resident of Pamulapadu village. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife Rojamma owned an extent of Ac.7.00 of land in Pamulapadu village, near Rudravaram village, and out of the said Ac.7.00 of land they have raised Millet crop in Ac.3.00; Sun flower crop in Ac.1.00 besides Korra crop in some extent of the remaining Ac.3.00; and kept some extent vacant. Whileso, on the day of Sankranthi festival i.e., on 14-01-2006, twenty two college students, including one Sukunath, s/o Maheswara Reddy; and son-in-law of the said Maheswara reddy namely Ma...
Kishan Singh Vs. Special Commissioner, Land Revenue and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD686; 2007(4)ALT646
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the order, dated 4.1.1997 passed by the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently set aside the same.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas in S. No. 92 situated in Mamidipally Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Government, after collecting market value, granted patta and subsequently assigned the land to him in the year 1980 and since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it. Most of the conditions of the patta are applicable to the landless poor persons, who are assigned lands free of cost, but the petitioner was assigned the land on payment of fixed market value. When the petitioner applied to local Gram Panchayat for grant of layout, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, without reference to any provisions of the Andhra Pradesh...
Movva Tirupathaiah and ors. Vs. Movva Sivaji Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD32; 2007(6)ALT112
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Inasmuch as these appeals emanate from the common judgment dated 16-11-1989 and as the parties are same, they can be disposed of together.2. The common judgment and decrees dated 16-11-1989 in OS Nos. 30 and 52 of 1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudivada are now sought to be assailed in the instant appeals. The judgment and decree passed in LA. No. 262 of 1992 in O.S. No. 52 of 1984 awarding future profits is now being assailed in AS No. 2315 of 1993.3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. O.S. No. 30 of 1984 was filed seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 1-6-1977 against the sole defendant by name Smt. Movva Naga Siromani. O.S. No. 52 of 1984 was filed by the said Mowa Naga Siromani seeking the relief of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule mentioned properties from defendants 1 and 2 who are the plaintiff in O.S. No. 52 of 1984 and his son. Defendants 2 and 3 have been added subsequently in O.S. No. 30 of 1984 consequent...
Jindal Strips Ltd., (Ferro Alloys Division) Vs. Superintending Enginee ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD641; 2008(6)ALT11
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the notice dated 7.5.1997 issued by the first respondent, demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 53,26,767.75 ps towards the additional charges and interest on withholding amount of categorization difference.2. Petitioner is a small scale industry, established in the year 1986 in the notified area of Vizianagaram District. After its establishment, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the then A.P. State Electricity Board (Board), and the Board agreed to supply high tension power under Category-I to the petitioner unit. Originally the Board agreed to supply power at H.T. Category-I and thereafter, in the month of September, 1987, the said category was changed to H.T. Category-III and thus the Board started collecting tariff from the petitioner under H.T. Category-III. For the months of September, October, and November 1987, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 6,96,208.58 ps., Rs. 5,67,261.2...
Agricultural Market Committee Vs. Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Ope ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD372
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is an Agricultural Market Committee at Tadepalligudem. The premises maintained by it are provided with power supply through S.C. No. 93. The premises were inspected on 27.11.2003. On finding that the meter was not functioning well, the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings for levying back billing charges from 27.5.2003 to 27.11.2003. A show-cause notice was issued. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 26.10.2004, holding the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,73,596/-.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent against the order of the 1st respondent. The appeal was disposed of by order dated 13.10.2006. The 2nd respondent enhanced the amount of back billing to Rs. 3,48,440/-. Hence, this writ petition.3. Petitioner states that there was absolutely no basis for back billing. It is urged that when the petitioner made out a grievance against the order passed by ...
Arjala Manohara Rao Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD637
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file a fresh declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (for short 'the Act') is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not insist the petitioner to file a fresh declaration and not to take any coercive steps against him.2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1960, the then Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam granted ryotwari patta in respect of an extent of Acs. 1115.80 cents of land in favour of his father, by name late Kondala Rao, under Section 11 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948') and since then the petitioner's family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and they also alleged to have been paying taxes to the Government. Subse...
Bodapati Naga Krishna Gandhi Vs. Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2978
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. Since both the cases are under the same set of circumstances and the parties are also one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common order.2. The petitioner in both the cases is the accused in C.C. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant filed Crl.M. P. No. 775 of 2006 in C.C. No. 31 of 2004 and Crl. M. P. No. 776 of 2006 in C.C. No. 32 of 2004 requesting the Court to permit his son, being the general power of attorney holder, to represent him. The lower Court, through the order, dated 31-7-2006, passed the following order in both the petitions:This is a petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant pray to permit Ilapakurthi Anantha Venkata Krishna Rao to represent the petitioner before the Hon'ble Court on all dates of hearing of the...
D. Appala Raju and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD470; 2007(6)ALT510
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. The petitioners, who are twenty-four in number, claim to be the residents of Gudivada (Paderu), a Muthadari Village in Visakhapatnam District. It is stated that the forefathers of the petitioners were put in possession of small bits of lands by the then Muttadar and thereafter, the predecessors of the petitioners and the petitioners have continued in possession and enjoyment of the same wherein they have constructed their houses and residing therein for the past more than 70 years. They are also paying house taxes to the Gram Panchayat regularly.2. While so, in the year 1979, the third respondent-Agency Divisional Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Paderu, Visakhapatnam, initiated proceedings for ejection under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short Regulation 1 of 1959) alleging that the petitioners are in occupation of the land in question in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959. How...
Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. J. Krishna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD499; 2008(3)ALT540
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and Smt. Radhika, representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, the Counsel for the first respondent.2. The following substantial question of law was pointed by Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Hyderabad.Whether in an appeal under Section 54-A(2)(ii) of the ESI Act, 1948 against the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal, is it proper for the Employees Insurance Court to determine the percentage of disablement, overriding the decision of Medical Appeal Tribunal in the absence of any specific provision as to the manner in which the Court is to examine the correctness or otherwise of the report of the Medical Appeal Tribunal?3. Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the contents of the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal preferred under the Employees State Insura...
G. Rajababu Vs. Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD105; 2007(3)ALT516
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 6068 of 2004 is filed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6334 of 1997. W.P. Nos. 6123 of 2004 and 16890 of 2006 are filed against the order in O.A. No. 1854 of 1997.2. O.A. No. 1854 of 1997 and batch, which included O.A. No. 6334 of 1997, was allowed by the Tribunal, in its order dated 27-03-2003, and the rules in G.O.Ms. No. 14 dated 26-11-1994, as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 09-05-1996, to the extent they provided a channel for the senior assistants and senior stenographers, working in the head office of the labour, factories and boiler departments and subordinate offices of the factories and boilers department, to be appointed by transfer to the post of assistant labour officer and the related provisions providing for quota and rotation etc., to these categories, were declared void being violative of the mandatory provisions of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »