Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Bakarupanda Padmavathi Vs. Bank of India Rep. by Its Zonal Manager and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD503; 2008(3)ALT213; [2008(118)FLR752]; (2008)IIILLJ463AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner joined the service of the Bank of India, in the year 1982. At present, she is working as a Computer Operator. Up to August 2006, she was working in the SSI Branch of Visakhapatnam, and thereafter, she was transferred to the Overseas branch, in the same city. The 1st respondent transferred her to Samalkot Branch in East Godavari District, vide orders dated 5.11.2007. Consequential orders were passed by the 2nd respondent on 8.11.2007. The petitioner challenges the same.2. The petitioner contends that she is a chronic patient of severe spondilitis, vertigo and other gynaelogical ailments, for the past 10 years, and that she is taking treatment at Visakhapatnam from various specialists. She submits that her transfer to the Overseas Branch was at her request, and her sudden transfer to a far off place is not justified, either on facts, or in law. She pleads that ever since the present Senior Manager has taken charge in the Overseas Branch, she i...
Paramita Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Ue Devlopment India (P) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD106; 2008(3)ALT440; 2008(3)ARBLR522(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Paramita Constructions Private Limited (PCPL), Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) filed the instant application under Sections 11(2), and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for brevity), read with Scheme to Appointment of Arbitrators 2002. They seek appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between applicant and UE Development India (P) Limited (UDIPL), Bangalore (Kamataka).2. The brief fact of the matter is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded the work of Tuni-Anakapalli Road Project (TARP) to GMR Tuni Anakapalli Expressways Private Limited, the employer, who in turn on 10-1-2002 entered into contract for the construction of strengthening of existing 4 lanes from KM 28/0 to KM 67/0 and widening of the existing 2 lanes from KM 67/0 to KM 121/0 to 4 lane dual carriageway and strengthening thereof, known as TARP. In turn, the main contractor entered into the main subcontract with UDIPL. They in turn, entered into a further subco...
General Manager, South Central Railway and ors. Vs. Ashok Engineering ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD490; 2008(3)ALT452; 2008(3)ARBLR555(AP)
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 7-8-2007 passed in O.P. No. 10 of 2003 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which an Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties under the agreement dated 28-4-1998.2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein and petitioners have entered into an agreement dated 28-4-1998 for supply of sand, stacking and spreading the same into the tract over ballast portion in between Kms. 872 to 888 on Hingoli section. The dispute raised by first respondent-company is that it has supplied sand in 2nd phase worth Rs. 13,166/- and the bill amount was not paid and that an amount of Rs. 6,438/- was deducted from the first bill towards security deposit.3. The first respondent could not complete the balance contract work and sent a letter on 29-3-2000 rescinding the contract and further claimed the payment for the work done. When there was ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Local Divisional Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ153; 2008(4)ALD219; 2008(4)ALT427
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T. Ramulu, learned Counsel representing appellant and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovuri, learned Counsel representing first respondent. Second respondent was served, but none represents second respondent. 2. The appellant herein is the second respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 337 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kadapa (Fast Track Court, Kadapa) (MACT). The second respondent in the present M.A.C.M.A. is the first respondent in the said M.V.O.P, the owner of the vehicle and as already specified above, though the second respondent, owner of the vehicle, had been served, none represents the second respondent. The first respondent in the M.A.C.M.A is the petitioner-claimant in the said M.V.O.P. 3. Sri T. Ramulu, learned Counsel representing the appellant-second respondent would maintain that the appellant-insurance company examined its officer as R.W.1 who categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driv...
Exotic Granite Exports Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri. K. Ramachandr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT200
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Venkat Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, the learned Government Pleader for Forests, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior Counsel, representing the respective respondents.2. The writ petitioner M/s.Exotic Granite Exports, filed the present Writ Petition praying for quashing the proceedings of 1st respondent in Memo No. 1220/M.II(1)/07, dated 16-3-2007 (P1) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and financial rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rules made under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue a conseque...
V. Amarender Rao Vs. Pattem Surya Prakash Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD493; 2008(5)ALT789
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 filed by the contemnor who has been held guilty of violating orders of this Court made in WP MP No. 2333 of 2005 in WP No. 23156 of 2004, dated 8.2.2005 as per the orders in CC No. 525 of 2006, dated 17.9.2007 and imposing simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, which gave rise to these proceedings are that the respondent is the petitioner who filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in WP No. 23156 of 2004, as against the appellant herein, assailing the order dated 6.12.2004 of the Reserve Bank of India cancelling the license of the Prudential Co-operative Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank') in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act and also the consequential order passed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies appoint...
Gayatri Bar and Restaurant Reptd. by Its Proprietor, Sri B. Narasimha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD570; 2008(3)ALT637
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, who was vexed with needless litigation on two earlier occasions, has perforce filed this Writ Petition seeking invalidation of order dated 7-2-2008 passed by respondent No. 1 in purported exercise of his power under Rule 5(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Rules') as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 596, dated 26-5-2006. 2. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 for grant of prior clearance for obtaining licence in Form-2B for establishment and running of a Bar and Restaurant on the main road of Kazipet, Warangal District. Vide his order dated 13-9-2007 respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 1 to inspect the proposed premises for issue of prior clearance and submit a report to him. Respondent No. 1, in turn, called for a report from respondent No. 3. Accordingly, respondent No. 3, after inspection and making necessary enquiries, submitted his report dated...
A. Krishna Reddy Vs. Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALT46
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the memo No. A/798/2006 dated Nil-5-2007 of the first respondent, refusing to survey the individual holdings of the petitioner in respect of land situate in Jukal village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, contrary to Rule 14 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 and the circular ref No. ROR(A)/225/89 dated 1-6-1989.2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.03 in Survey No. 160/A, Ac. 2.12 in survey No. 161/A, Ac. 1.03 in survey No. 163, Ac. 1.19 in survey No. 164/A, Ac. 0.30 in survey No. 165/A, Ac. 0.07 in survey No. 166, Ac. 0.25 in survey No. 168/A, Ac. 1.16 in survey No. 169, Ac. 3.04 in survey No. 212/A, Ac. 2.20 in survey No. 213/A, Ac.3.31 in survey No. 214/A, Ac. 2.11 in survey No. 215/A, Ac.2.34 in Survey No. 216/A and Ac. 2.39 in survey No. 222/A, Jukal villave, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy D...
K.V. Sudha Rani and ors. Vs. the Vijayawada-guntur-tenali-mangalagiri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD545; 2008(3)ALT760
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, a common question arises for consideration, viz., whether the separate, but identical, proceedings issued by the Vice-Chairman of Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (for short 'the respondent-authority') - whereunder he purported to have cancelled the registered sale deeds standing in favour of the petitioners - are legal and valid?2. Since the facts in all these cases are similar, for convenience facts in Writ Petition No. 13032 of 2006 are narrated hereinbelow:The respondent-authority was constituted under the provisions of Section 3 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. An extent of Ac.390.38 cents of land was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and transferred to the respondent-authority comprised in various Survey Numbers, i.e., R.S. Nos. 274 to 287, 299 to 302, 305 to 313 of Mangalagiri Municipality and R.S. Nos. 56 to 65, 72 to 75, 77 to 83, 85, 87 to 93, 95, 348 to...
W. Giridhar Rao Vs. Executive Director (Personnel) Disciplinary Author ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD76; 2008(4)ALT297; (2009)ILLJ92AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner joined the Life Insurance Corporation of India as Development Officer in the year 1994. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, and thereafter as Branch Manager, Guntur. When he was working as Manager of the City Branch, Visakhapatnam, a trap was laid by C.B.I., and he was caught red handed, while receiving a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, from a policy holder. On the basis of the successful trap laid on the petitioner, prosecution was launched through C.C. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. & S.P.E. Cases, Visakhapatnam. Departmental proceedings were also initiated, by issuing a charge-sheet.2. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 25318 of 2002, alleging that the charges framed against him are vague, in many respects. An order of interim stay was granted in W.P.M.P. No. 31964 of 2002. The Corporation filed a W.V.M.P. No. 25879 of 2003. On 21.10.2003 this Court passed an order, making the interim stay absolute, but leaving it ope...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »