Andhra Pradesh Court January 2008 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.
U.S. Murthy Vs. General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Industrial ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD274
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.10.1994, whereby the petitioner was reduced to a lower grade i.e., from Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management Grade Scale-I, as envisaged under Regulation 4(e) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the present writ petition is filed.2. The charges levelled against the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 10.5.1993, are as under:1. You failed to ensure and use of the loan granted by you.2. You granted loans for accommodation purposes.3. You have shown undue favour to a few parties by granting loans under DIR category to borrowers who are not eligible for loans under the above scheme.4. You demanded/obtained illegal gratification for grant of loans.3. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, in his report dated 17.6.1994, held all the four charges as proved. While forwarding a copy of the enquiry report, along with it...
Komatla Ranga Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Annavarapu Lakshmi P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALT19
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 23-4-1999 made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial question of law involved in Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal.2. The substantial questions of law specified under Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 read as hereunder:(1) Is it permissible under law to ignore the provision under Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inasmuch as the right of the vendor of 1st respondent is concerned in the light of decree in A.S. No. 19 of 1938 on the file of Sub-Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7-1940?(2) Whether it is legal to say that entire property vests with the vendor of the 1st respondent when it is decreed that Will dated 20-8-1922 which purports to have vested the entire property of Chennayya is not genuine in A.S. No. 19/38 on the file of Sub Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7-1940?(3) Is it legal to deny half share to the daughter of the deceased as per Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act along with the widow of the deceased since both of them are c...
A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sri Ambuja Petro Chemic ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: [2008]86SCL13(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This application is filed by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', for brevity) and Rule 9 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 ('the Rules', for brevity), seeking permission to issue orders cancelling allotment of land and resume possession of land admeasuring Acs. 1.22 guntas in survey No. 82/2 situated at Hafeezpet village of Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, 'scheduled land') under the right of re-entry. The applicant seeks to resume possession by resorting to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968.2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. M/s. Sri Ambuja Petro Chemicals Limited (APCL) is a small scale industry. APIIC allotted scheduled land to APCL on 22-4-1989. As per said allotment order, the land was meant for construction of godown and storage tanks. The allottee paid an amount...
Suryadevara Nageswara Rao and ors. Vs. Sai Balaji Sortex Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD715; 2008(4)ALT482
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Prabhunath Vasi Reddy, the Counsel representing the writ petitioners, Sri Mohan Rao, the Counsel representing the 1st respondent, the learned G.P. for Industries and Commerce and the learned G.P. for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the Counsel representing the other respondents.2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in permitting the running of the 1st respondent Industry in residential area by allowing the appeal filed by the 1st respondent contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made there under and declare that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent by his proceedings Roc.No. 937/2006-G5 dated 21-3-2006 as arbitrary, illegal contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to close down the 1st respondent Industry and pass such other ...
Komatla Ranga Reddy (Died) Per Lrs and anr. Vs. Gollamoory Venkata Ram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT72
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 05.8.1999 this Court made the following order:Admit. The substantial questions of taw framed in Ground No.4 of the appeal arise for consideration in this second appeal. List along with S.A. No. 200of1999.2. The substantial questions of law specified under Ground No. 4 are as hereunder:(a) Is it not illegal or the part of both the lower courts in not framing the issue whether Kotamma succeed to the entire property of the deceased Chennayya or whether Kotamma and Eswaramma succeed to half share each to the property of the deceased Chennayya as both of them being class I heirs of deceased Chennayya?(b) Is it permissible under law to ignore the provision under Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inasmuch as the right of the adoptive mother of the 1st respondent is concerned in the light of decree in A.S. No. 19/38 on the file of Sub-Judge, Bapatla, dated 15.7.1940?(c) Whether it is legal to say that entire property of the deceased vests with the adoptive moth...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. M. Siva Parvati and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ454; AIR2008AP145; 2008(3)ALD347; 2008(3)ALT829
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16- 9-2003 passed in O.A.A. No. 246 of 1999 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, whereby and where under the application of R1 to R3 filed under Section 16 r/w 124(A) and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 came to be allowed granting compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs.2. Background facts of the case in a nutshell leading to filing of this appeal by the Union of India represented by General Manager are: One M.Seshagiri along with five others traveled in Pinakini Express from Erode in Tamilnadu to Tenali in Andhra Pradesh. The said train reached Tenali at 2050 hours on 20.10.1998 on platform No. 4. Seshagiri while alighting from the train fell down due to the jerk of the train before coming to complete halt. He sustained injuries and co-passengers shifted him to the Government Hospital, Tenali where he succumbed to injuries on the same day. His wife and two children filed O.A....
Choudhry Traders Rep. by Its Proprietor, Mr. Ramdath Choudhry S/O Late ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD670; 2008(4)ALT193
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned Counsel representing the first respondent and Sri M.P. Ugle, learned Counsel representing the second respondent.2. The counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of an affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, respective stands taken by R1 and R2 in the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition in the light of Sections 21, 35E of the Banking Regulation Act, 1995 and also in the light of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the petitioner is bound to succeed in the Writ Petition even on the strength of the doctrine of 'the legitimate expectation'. The learned Counsel would conclude that under law and also on the ground of equity suitable ...
Yeddula Venkata Kotaiah Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT759
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri I. Gopala Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri K.V. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for records in Rc. 1490/06 dated 01.02.2007 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District relating to the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer for the village of Konakanamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District (including the earlier notification in Rc. 1810/05, dated 01.10.2005) and to quash the notification dated 01.02.2007 in Rc. 1490/06 pertaining to the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer of Konakamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other suitable orders.3. Sri I. Gopala Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the notificati...
C.J. Chakradhar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD714
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of rationalized revised pay scales and fixation of pay with arrears from 1.1.1996 basing on the proceedings No. PC-V/9/4 (RBE No. 228/98) dated 7.10.1998 and Para 2 of the proceedings No. PC-V/97/G/4 (RCE No. 171/97) dated 4.12.1997 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. It appears, in pursuance of the Fifth Pay Commission (Central), the pay of the employees working in Central Government departments including Railway Protection Force was increased and adopted with effect from 1.1.1996. Petitioners were also put on revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996. However, it appears that the recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission (Central) for artisan staff has caused some disparities since that group was functioning with other categories of Railway employees. In view of the disparities and discrepancies of r...
M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authori ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP117; 2008(2)ALD515; 2008(2)ALT556
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated 14th of December 2005 passed in Proceedings No. G1/85/2003 by the District Registrar of Assurances, Kadapa and order dated 2nd of August 2007 passed in Proceedings No. CCRA/19798/2005 by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad. Few necessary facts in brief are as follows:2. One Smt. P. Swaroopa Rani was the owner of a theatre which was being run in the name of 'Sri Venkateswara Picture Palace', situated in Survey No. 72/1 of Nagarajupalli village in 14th Ward in Kadapa Municipal limits. Petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said theatre for a total consideration of Rs. 64,00,000/-. The agreement was executed on 28th of March 2001 on Rs. 100/- Non-judicial stamp paper. In terms of the above agreement, a part consideration amount was paid and possession was to be handed over by the owner...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »