Andhra Pradesh Court May 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. Sai Prasanna and ors. Vs. Medical Council of India Rep. by Its Secr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD484; 2008(3)ALT678
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Question for determination in these cases being the same, common order is a necessity. In all these cases, decision dated 10.2.2006 of Executive Committee of Medical Council of India (MCI) and Ad hoc committee dated 10.2.2006 not to grant registration to Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students who have undergone part of training in an institution in India without obtaining permission from Government of India/MCI, is impugned as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to grant provisional registration and/or permanent registration under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity). The said decision of Executive Committee was communicated to all petitioners by different impeached communications sent by Additional Secretary to MCI.2. These cases can be divided into three groups. In first group, Indian students obtained MBBS degree awarded by International Medical and Technological University (IMTU), Dar-es-salaam, Tanz...
K. Jangaiah and ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Com ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD553; 2008(3)ALT699
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Generation, transmission and supply of electricity, in the State of Andhra Pradesh used to be undertaken by the A.P. State Electricity Board, which was created under a statute. In the recent past, substantial changes were brought about, in the said activity. Separate Companies, fully owned by the State, were brought into existence, for undertaking the respective activities, in the place of the Board. Activity of generation of power is brought under the purview of the A.P. Generation Corporation (for short 'the A.P. Genco'); the transmission, under the A.P. Transmission Corporation (for short 'the A.P. Transcd), and the Distribution, under the purview of four separate Distribution Companies. Even under the changed set up, the control of Government exists, be it, in the context of overseeing the general activities, or monitoring the pattern of appointments, in the respective companies. The Distribution Companies function almost as sister-organizations to the A.P....
Mohammed Izhar Ali Vs. Smt. Olive Founseca (Died) Per L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP196; 2008(4)ALD254; 2008(4)ALT147; 2008(5)AIRKarR448(FB)(AP); 2008AIHC3168(AP)(FB)
ORDERG. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for brevity 'the Rules') is only directory and not mandatory as Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') is only directory and not mandatory, according to the tenant unsuccessful before the Rent Controller and in appeal.2. The two Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 4283 and 4284 of 2002 by the tenant primarily advancing such a contention came up before a learned single Judge, who considered a conflict of views to be existing in the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court on the question. Consequently, a reference was made formulating the following questions:(1) When Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is directory, can Rule 5 of the Rules framed for working out the said provisions be treated as mandatory?(2) Whether deposit of rent into Court is sufficient ...
Vuppala Ramulu and anr. Vs. V. Bhudevi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD363; 2008(4)ALT425
ORDERG. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondents is not present.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in LA. No. 474/2006 in O.S. No. 195 of 2005 in transposing the defendants 10 to 14 and 16 as plaintiff Nos. 3 to 8, the original plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the suit, filed the present revision.3. From the material on record, it could be seen that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the family members of the 1st defendant and they filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The case of the plaintiffs is that the entire suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The grievance of the plaintiff, inter alia, is that the defendants refused to have partition by metes and bounds and were admitting to create third party interest by transferring the suit land in favour of the 17th defendant, depriving the share of the plaintiffs. The defendants 10 to 14 and 16 filed their writt...
M. Dhananjaiah Goud Vs. Mogudampally Chandraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD678; 2008(4)ALT227
ORDERG. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-2007 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Medak, Medak District, in allowing the I.A. and thereby summoning the witnesses sought for by the election petitioner, the 1st respondent in the election O.P., filed the present revision.3. From the material on record it could be seen that the 1st respondent herein, filed election petition to declare the election of the revision petitioner as void and along with the election petition, he filed bona fide certificates of the children of the revision petitioner, obtained from the Head Master of Z.P.H.S., Turkalakanapur and Head Master of Vidya Bharathi Talent School, Doulthabad Mandal, Hathnoora and further he also filed true copy of house hold information issued by the Tahsildar of Hathnoora Mandal and to prove the said documents, which were marked, he sought for summons of the authorities and the court below by the impugned order allowed the petition and ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shriram Refrigeration Industries [P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(240)ELT201(AP)
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. As common question of law arises in all these appeals, they respondent being disposed of by a common order.2. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Limited (SIL), which later changed its name as Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited with effect from 20.05.1992 and then to Siel Limited from 10.05.1995, had, through a scheme of arrangement with the approval of the High Court of Delhi, transferred its compressor business, along with its all assets, to Siel Compressors Limited. Later its name was changed to M/s Tecumseh Products India Limited i.e. The respondent SIL was undertaking repairs to damaged and defective compressors at its service center, which is separate from the main factory but adjacent thereto. On the ground that SIL was manufacturing stators, Central Excise officials issued show cause notice dated 17.01.1991 demanding excise duty from 1.1.1987 to 31.7.1990 and another notice dated 25.3.1991 demanding duty for the period 1.8.1990 to April 1992 to SIL. ...
V. Venugopal Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD643; 2008(5)ALT740
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. As the question of law that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is the same, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These petitions are filed inter alia challenging the final notification dated 31.5.2007 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India fixing and dividing the territorial Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of Sections 8 and 4 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 as amended by the Delimitation (Amendment) Act, 2004 (the Act). In some of the writ petitions the Constitutional validity of Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 10(2) of the Act also is challenged on the ground that they violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India i.e. taking away the power of judicial review.3. As preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of these writ petitions is raised by Sri Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Un...
S.A. Basha Vs. Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD700; 2008(4)ALT632
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is working as Inspector in the RPF. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge-sheet in August, 2006, wherein certain charges were framed. After receiving the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority appointed the third respondent, as an Enquiry Officer. Departmental enquiry was conducted, and ultimately, the third respondent submitted his report on 29.8.2006, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner, are proved. The first respondent, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 1.2.2008, to the petitioner inviting his objections/comments on the findings recorded in the report. The petitioner filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in submitting his report, on the ground that he did not permit him to cross-examine the witnesses named in the charge-sheet, during the course of enquiry.2. Sri J.M. Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitio...
N. Kamala Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALT596
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. N. Kamala, w/o N. Damodar Goud (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) challenging the correctness and validity of the detention order dated 30-11-2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Karimnagar in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) r/w Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabers Act, 1986 (for short the Act, 1986) with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. Briefly stated the alleged activities of the detenu as set out in the grounds of the detention order dated 30-11-2007 are:On 8-6-2007 at about 1.30 p.m. under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar and Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar su...
Yashwitha Constructions (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, M. Pro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALT266
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This application is filed, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a retired Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, or a technically qualified impartial and independent person, as a substitute arbitrator.2. The applicant is a private limited company with its registered office at Chennai. The respondent, a private limited company with its registered office at Calcutta, was awarded the work of rehabilitation and upgradation of the existing two lane road to a 4/6 lane divided carriage way between Kavali and Ongole in the State of Andhra Pradesh, (i.e., Chainage KM 222 to KM 291), by the National Highway Authority of India. The respondent engaged the applicant as its sub-contractor for execution of about 50% of the said road work. Clause 21 of the work order, which is the arbitration clause, provided that, in the event of any difference or dispute arising out of, or in connection with, the work order, the same...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »