Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
J. Viswanatha Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, Reve ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD179; 2008(4)ALT388
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, whose Form A-4 licence issued under the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules') to sell liquor in retail was cancelled, filed this writ petition seeking invalidation of the orders passed by the hierarchical authorities by issue of a writ of Certiorari.2. The facts crisply stated are as under:The petitioner was the successful bidder for running a retail liquor shop at Vellatur, Pendimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. He was granted licence bearing No. 117/2006-08 in Form A-4 under the Rules for a period of two years from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2008. On 26.01.2007, respondent No. 5 along with his staff conducted a search and found 77 cartons of spurious liquor bottles of Bagpiper Whisky, with each of the 3693 bottles containing 180 ml. Consequently, respondent No. 5 registered a criminal case bearing crime No. 162 of 2006-07 on his file for offence under Secti...
Kandadai Tirumal Acharya and ors. Vs. Kandadai Venkatachari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD171; 2008(5)ALT437
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This is a regular first appeal by first defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal. The suit for partition was initially filed informa pauperis, by Kandadai Perundevamma against four defendants, including her two sons, namely, Tirumalacharyulu1 and Venkatachari, defendant Nos. 1 and 4. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Kunduri Venkatachary and Kunduri Ramanjacharya, are children of Venkatamma who is elder sister of Perundevamma. Sole plaintiff's son Venkatachari was transposed as second plaintiff as per orders of trial Court in I.A. No. 114 of 1983, dated 28.06.1983. After death of second defendant, his children came on record as defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 were brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 3. During pendency of appeal suit before this Court, Tirumalacharyulu - sole appellant; died, and his wife and son are brought on record as legal heirs. The first respondent/second plaint...
Mohammed Abdul Rahman and ors. Vs. B. Manorama and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD586; 2008(4)ALT702
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Both the civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (the Act, for brevity) arise out of same original proceedings and therefore it is expedient to dispose of by common order. These civil revision petitions are filed by thirteen petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 5 are brothers, petitioner No. 6 is wife and petitioners 7 to 13 are children of late Mohammed Abdul Rasheed (other brother of petitioners 1 to 5). All of them filed R.C. No. 473 of 1998 before learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of respondents from non-residential premises bearing Municipal No. 5-2-1020. Grounds urged are wilful default in payment of rent from January 1998 to June 1998 and bona fide requirement of leased premises for personal occupation for commencement of business in 'tobacco khiwam' by petitioner No. 9. Learned Rent Controller negatived allegation of WILFUL default but held that requiremen...
Mohammad Jani Basha Vs. Mrs. Mitra Tabacco Products, Lease Holders of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD519; 2008(4)ALT9; [2008(118)FLR613]; (2008)IIILLJ1022AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner filed I.D. No. 278 of 2000, in the Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the ID Act'). He stated that he was employed as a clerk in the 1st respondent company, in the year 1973, but was removed from service, with effect from 1.5.1998, in contravention of Section of the Act. The 1st respondent opposed the I.D. and stated that the petitioner retired from service on 15.4.1998, on receiving compensation of Rs. 11,275/-, and that he received another sum of Rs. 5,467/-, when the company was under the management of M/s. MGM Saheb Brothers and MGM Agencies. A plea, as to the power of Labour Court, under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act, also raised, based on Section 31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act'). Through its award, dated 4.7.2005, the Labour Court held that the petitioner left the service voluntarily in April 1998, or had resigned. In additi...
Andhra Sugars Limited Rep. by Its General Manager (Hrd) Vs. Labour Cou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD527; 2008(3)ALT770; [2008(118)FLR689]; (2008)IIILLJ709AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions arise under similar set of circumstances. Awards passed in I.D. Nos. 234, 235 and 236 of 1999, by the Labour Court, Guntur; are challenged in the respective writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as the Management, and the workmen. While the Management filed the first three writ petitions, one of the workmen filed W.P. No. 338 of 2006.2. The workmen were employed at various points of time, with the management. While the workmen in W.P. No. 27670 of 2005 is said to have resigned on 15-03-1999, those, in the other writ petitions, are stated to have submitted their resignations on the next day, mentioning different reasons. The management, in turn, accepted the resignations, on different dates, and the letters of acceptance were also communicated to the workmen. The latter submitted representations on 27-05-1999, disputing the very factum of submission of any resignations. It is alleged that during the c...
State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. P. K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD296; 2009(3)ALT200
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by the State of A.P., represented by Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally, Secunderabad, for a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with Order dated 31-12-2004 in L.G.C. No. 40/2001 on the file of Special Court under A.P. land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad and to quash the same and pass such other or further orders deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/applicant filed L.G.C. No. 40/2001 on the file of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad against the respondent alleging that the respondent encroached into Government Graveyard in T.S. No.9, Block-A, Ward 119, corresponding to Sy. Nos. 19/P, 20/IP and 22/P of Marredpally Sarfekhas village to the extent of 6590 sq. mts. out of total extent of 17,300 sq. mts. in the said survey number, which is being used by the local community people of Marredpally villa...
K. Tejaswarup Vs. V. Veena
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALT113
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Since the matter is heard at length and in detail, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal, at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 13-9-2007, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, allowing the petition F.C.O.P. No. 56 of 2006, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for dissolution of marriage and to grant divorce.3. Appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife in the O.P., before the Court below.4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as 'the husband' and 'the wife' respectively.5. The Court below, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, passed the impugned order, granting decree of...
Surampudi Sudarsana Rao Vs. Nanduri Venkata Seetha Ramanjaneyulu and F ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD505; 2008(6)ALT676
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on record.2. This Court on 22.6.1998 made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial questions of law raised in ground Nos. 1 to 7 of Memorandum of Grounds Appeal. Notice.3. On a careful perusal of the grounds, on the strength of which the Second Appeal had been admitted, this Court is of the opinion that all these grounds would relate to only factual controversies. However, Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this Second Appeal:1. Whether the judgment of the appellate Court can be sustained without recording the specific finding relating to the factum of possession especially in a suit of this nature, the suit being a suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor?2. Whether the decree can be made in favour of the 2nd plaintiff since there was no cause of action at all...
Amritha Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)233; 2008(3)ALT563; 2008CriLJ3123
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. A short question that arises for our consideration in this writ petition is:Whether non-consideration of the representation by the officer mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1896 (for short 'the Act'), made after approval of the detention order by the Government will vitiate the detention order or renders further detention of the detenu illegal?2. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner seeks release of her husband, namely, Shankar Singh @ Nala Shanker (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), who has been detained on 26-11-2007 by virtue of an order of detention passed by the first respondent, namely, the Collector & District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 r/w Section 3(1) of the Act by setting aside the ...
P. Sukanya Vs. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD750; 2008(4)ALT778
T. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 28.9.2007 in O.A. No. 367 of 2007.2. The petitioner herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. She filed the above O.A., seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. A3/809/04, dated 5.1.2007 confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. A4/7496/2004, dated 4.4.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and further to direct the respondents to continue the applicant as Village Servant, Gangloor Village, Pulkal Mandal and pay all consequential benefits.3. It is the case of the applicant that she has been appointed as Village Servant vide proceedings dated 1.2.2006 by the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds as her husband died on 20.12.2005 while he was in service. Originally, the husband of the applicant was appointed as Village Servant on 3.12.1990 after following due procedure and he was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »