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.
Prasad Medica Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderaba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP154; 2008(4)ALD17; 2008(3)ALT479
ORDERNooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. Calling in question the order; passed by the State Government through their Memo dated 26.4.2006, the present writ petition has been instituted by the writ petitioner company.2. The writ petitioner company was selected for setting up IMAX theatre with multiplex and entertainment complex on land of little over two acres belonging to the State, which has agreed to lease out for a period of 33 years subject to the condition of payment of 5% of the market value of the land as lease amount. The petitioner company was required to establish an IMAX theatre and a multiplex with at least four screens and the important factor for the State Government seeking to establish this entertainment project on its site is that it will be sharing the revenue with the petitioner company at the rate of 15% of gross receipts or Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month whichever is higher. It had passed orders through its G.O.Ms. No. 553, Revenue Department, dated 29.4.2003 granting exemption fr...
B.T.S. Estate Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director, Sesham R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT584
R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14-02-2008, passed in W.P. No. 21099 of 2007.2. The aforesaid writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2, banks, in invoking the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as illegal and ultra vires and to consequently declare the sales effected in favour of respondents 3 to 56 as null and void. The learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that there are several factual disputes, declined to go into merits of the claim of the appellant and while dismissing the writ petition, reserved liberty to the appellant to pursue such lawful remedies available to it under law.3. The appellant is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, mainly involved in the business of constructio...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gouri Parvathi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ399
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. This appeal is filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved by the compensation granted in O.P. No. 778 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District by order dated 17.4.2002.2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows: On 17.1.1997 S.K.C. Ramabhadra Raju was travelling in Maruti Esteem car bearing No. AP 09-M 7997 and while so, a lorry bearing No. AP 09-U 1794 coming from the opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said car resulting in death of the above person. The wife, children and mother of the deceased filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 60,00,000 from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The owner remained ex parte while the insurer of the lorry contested the O.P. denying the manner of accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. The employer of the deceased and the insurer...
B.V. Bhaskar Reddy S/O Late B.C. Venkat Reddy Vs. State Bank of India ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD344; 2008(3)ALT592; [2008(118)FLR755]; (2008)IIILLJ1007AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is employed as a Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India, 1st respondent herein. Initially, a memo, dated 30.08.2002 was served upon him, whereunder, two charges were framed. This was followed by another memo, dated 27.03.2003, in which, the charges contained in the memo, dated 03.08.2002, were repeated and a few more charges were incorporated. The petitioner was required to submit explanation, as to why suitable disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. After the petitioner submitted his explanation, the 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer. A detailed enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer submitted a report, dated 10.01.2004, holding that the charges a, b(i)&(ii), Clause (ii) and f(ii) are proved. On a consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 21.04.2004. Apart from accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent stated that he ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›