Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
K. Natarajan Vs. Station Commander, Air Force Station and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD122; 2007(5)ALT169
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This petition is directed against order dated 10-10-2006 vide which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissed O.A. No. 1186 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for quashing the penalty of reduction of pay imposed on him by the disciplinary authority.2. The petitioner was appointed as Group-D Watchman in the year 1972 at Air Force Station, Begumpet. In 1999, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him on the following charges:ARTICLE IShri K. Natarajan perpetually evading the move on T/D to Adiiabad Air Field for performance of his trade duties. He willfully defied the lawful authority since -1 May, 99 in gross contravention of Rule 3 (1)(ii) and (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. -ARTICLE IIShri K. Natarajan has absented himself without leave from 27 Aug, 99 and continues to remain absent till date in contravention of Rule 3 (1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.ARTICLE II...
Viswanadha Venkata Yegneswara Sastry Vs. Sait Dinesh Kumar JaIn and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD714
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M. Rama Mohan, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned Counsel representing respondents.2. On 20.2.1998 this Court made the following order:Admit. Ground No. 6(a)(b) and (c) raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal is formulated for adjudication in the appeal.3. The Counsel on record pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available and also the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant had pointed out to the relevant dates and would maintain that the Courts below totally erred in arriving at the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation.4. On the contrary, the Counsel representing respondents in the second appeal would maintain that in the light of the clear findings recorded on question of limitation, the other questions need not be dealt with in elaboration and the findings recorded by both the Courts ...
G. Ravinder Vs. Commissioner for Endowments and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD587
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. In this batch of cases, the orders of transfer of Office Holders and servants working in endowments and charitable institutions, governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, are challenged. The said orders of transfer are passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 39 read with Section 8 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of better administration of the institutions. Though individual orders are passed, all the orders of transfer are passed on similar lines.2. For the purpose of convenience in disposal of the batch of cases, I refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 9286 of 2006.3. The order under challenge in Writ Petition No. 9286 of 2006 was passed in Rc.No.A3/l 1094/2006-18 (M.Z. III) by the Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioner who is working in th...
Rodde Chandraiah Vs. Rodde Madunamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD248; 2007(5)ALT218
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-3-2007 in I.A. No. 78 of 2007 in O.P.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. The revision petitioner is the first respondent in I.A. No. 78 of 2007.2. The first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner. She had earlier filed O.S. 124 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar seeking maintenance. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28-9-2002 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Subsequently, the first respondent herein filed a fresh suit as in forma pauperis for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month with retrospective effect. The said suit was registered on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli as O.P. No. 18 of 2007. The first respondent also filed I.A. No. 78 of 2007 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction restraining the respo...
T. Srinivas Vs. Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD314
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') can sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the inquiring authority/disciplinary authority and interfere with the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sri T. Srinivas for quashing order dated 24-12-2006 passed by the Tribunal in O.A, No. 700 of 2005.2. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case and the arguments of the learned Counsel, we deem it necessary to observe that the role of the Tribunals established under Section 4 of the Act is supplemental to the power exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) , Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court interpreted-Articles 323-A and 323-B of the ...
Kummuru Appala Swamy @ Sanjeeva Rao Vs. P.V. Prasada Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD251; 2007(6)ALT233
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appellant herein Kommuru Appala Swamy @ Sanjeeva Rao aggrieved by the Decree and Order made in S.O.P. No. 223/1996 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 21-1-2002 had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The appellant herein as petitioner filed the said S.O.P. No. 223/1996 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram praying for Succession Certificate in his favour for the amounts specified in the schedule and for costs of the petition. The first respondent herein who was shown as respondent in the said S.O.P. No. 223/1996 resisted the matter by filing counter. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and R.W.I and also marked Exs. A.1 to Ex. A.9 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner is not entitled for the relief of Succession Certificate and ...
T. Bhoopal Reddy and anr. Vs. Smt. K.R. Laxmi Bai (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD622; 2007(3)ALT760
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 14-5-2002 passed in O.S. No. 51 of 1994 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, dismissing the suit filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit properties mentioned in the plaint.2. As stated above, the appellants are plaintiffs and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the defendants in the original suit. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of one K.R. Rajareddy. During the pendency of appeal, respondent No. 1 (first defendant) died on 30-3-2004 and, therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were brought on record by orders of this Court dated 17-11-2004 in C.M.P. No. 14478 of 2004, by virtue of the Will Deed document No. 75 of 2004 Book-Ill, dt.20-5-2004.3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed the trial Court.4. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The averments made by the plaintiffs...
Parchuri Sambasiva Rao and ors. Vs. Parchuri Srinivasarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD801; 2007(5)ALT770
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Introductory Facts:AS No. 624 of 1993 is filed as against the judgment and decree made in OS No. 267 of 1982, dated 11.8.1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet. Transfer Appeal Suit No. 1260 of 2002 is filed as against the decree and judgment, dated 11.8.1992 made in OS No. 229 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet. Both these suits were disposed of by a common Judgment.2. OS No. 267 of 1982 was filed for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into 9 equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs by passing a preliminary decree and to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the properties and manage the properties pending disposal of the suit, and in the alternative for mesne profits and for other appropriate reliefs. The said suit was filed by Parchuri Sambasiva Rao and Parchuri Gopala Rao, the then minors represented by the next friend-guardian and mother Krishna Kumari. In the sa...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Granites ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD725; 2007(5)ALT389; [2007(115)FLR130]; (2007)IIILLJ1018AP
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order dated 29-10-2001 made in OP No. 118 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The first respondent as petitioner filed O.P. No. 118 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, under Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Act praying for a declaration that the notices dated 18-8-1994 and 6-9-1994 issued by the appellant-first respondent are illegal, invalid and ultra vires of their powers and for a consequential injunction. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having framed the points for consideration, appreciated the evidence of PW. 1, Exs. A1 to A8, RW. 1, Exs. B1 to B20 and came to the conclusion that the impugned demands are not in accordance wi...
Vuppu Veerabhadrudu (Died) by L.Rs. Vs. Vuppu Mallayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD864
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment made in OS No. 253 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli. The suit was originally instituted as OS No. 79 of 1984 on the file of Vacation Civil Court, Visakhapatnam. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant and since the said appellant died, appellants 2 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives by an order dated 20.10.2003 made in CMP No. 21037 of 2003. The 3rd respondent is shown as not a necessary party in the appeal, as the suit was dismissed as against 3rd respondent-defendant No. 3.2. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The said suit OS No. 253 of 1984 was tried along with yet another suit OS No. 79 of 1987 instituted by the 1st defendant in OS No. 253 of 1984. The said suit was originally instituted as OS No. 26 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram. Both suits were tried together and though on the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »