Andhra Pradesh Court July 2008 Judgments
K. Venkat Narasimha Reddy Vs. Y. Sathi Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD703
ORDER1. The writ petitioner was elected as a Member of Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency of Chithapuram Mandal Parishad of Valigonda Mandal in the elections held on 28.6.2006.2. The 1st respondent herein filed OP No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, questioning the election of the writ petitioner alleging that he had adopted corrupt practices and colluded with the Election Officer and the staff with the help and support of the sitting MLA. It was also alleged that the Election Officer played fraud at the time of counting of votes resulting in acceptance of invalid votes polled in favour of the writ petitioner and rejection of valid votes polled in favour of the 1st respondent. Thus, it was contended that if the counting of votes was done lawfully as per the procedure, the 1st respondent would have become the returned candidate with a majority of 30 votes. Accordingly, the election of the writ petitioner was sough...
Tag this Judgment!K. Suresh Babu Vs. Principal District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD804; 2008(6)ALT572
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is working as Personal Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. He filed the instant Writ Petition aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent dated 07.07.2006. Be it noted, by the said impugned order, the first respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the matter of disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and ordered fresh enquiry duly appointing III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (CCA Rules, for brevity).2. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into two charges. These related to the dereliction of duty by the petitioner as Personal Assistant to learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The indictment against the petitioner is tha...
Tag this Judgment!S. Padmanabham and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-ii Rep. by Its Chairma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT65
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The writ petitions are listed before us by way of reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to answer the following questions:1. Whether the Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction, the Head Office of a company is situated, will also have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the I.D., apart from the Court where cause of action has arisen, irrespective of whether any part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court where the Head Office is located?2. Whether the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. are applicable to the IDs filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?3. Whether the Court within whose jurisdiction the Branch Office of a company is located and where the cause of action has arisen, has to be taken as the relevant place for the purpose of raising an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?2. The above questions are said to have arisen in view of the two conflicting decisions of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Mada Nageshwararao Vs. Potta Bharathi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD818; 2009(1)ALT231
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The civil revision petition was admitted on 15.2.2008 and CRP MP No. 456/2008 on 15.2.2008, this Court made the following Order:I see no reason to pass any orders at this stage.Notice.2. Since the interim order was not granted by this Court and in view of the urgency pleaded by the parties for the disposal of the civil revision petition, on hearing the Counsel on record, the civil revision petition is being disposed of finally.3. Sri Subramanya Narasu, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that the learned I-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, should have allowed the application to implead the 2nd respondent as 2nd defendant in the suit in view of the 1st issue framed in the suit namely 'whether the plaintiff has executed an agreement dated 9.1.2000 in favour of the defendant's brother Mada Suryanarayana alias Suresh authorizing him to manage the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Vantaru Chinna Subba Rayudu Vs. Y. Lalitha Vani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD9
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by an order made in IA No. 93/2008 in OS No. 34/2008 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder the petitioner was given notice with a further direction to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 12,32,000/- within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court when required the entire property mentioned in the schedule hereunder sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff. The respondent herein - the plaintiff in the suit instituted the suit for recovery of money and also filed an application LA. No. 93/2008 in O.S. No. 34/08 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for conditional attachment. The certified copy of the third party affidavit of B.V. Ramana Rao is ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnari Jagga Rao and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD34; 2008(6)ALT479
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not initiating proceedings for acquisition of lands admeasuring Acs. 18.40 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 24 to 34 in Peddavalsa @ Gadabavalasam in Pedamarangi Revenue Village of Giyyamavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, belonging to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the above-mentioned land and that possession of the said land was taken in the year 1990-91 from them for provision of rehabilitation of the tribal victims for construction of housing colony and agricultural purposes. In the affidavit, they averred that in spite of their approaching the respondents time and again...
Tag this Judgment!Pulimeru Large Scale Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Authority ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD509
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 2nd respondent was employed as a Clerk in Gorinta Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. His services were terminated on 5.7.2004, as a measure to comply with the requirement under Section 116-C of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. One year thereafter, the said society was merged with the Pulimeru Large Scale Co-operative Society Limited (for short 'the Society').2. The 2nd respondent approached the authority, under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), 1st respondent herein, with an appeal against the order of termination and the same was taken up as A.P.S.E. Case No. 7 of 2005. The 1st petitioner entered appearance, but did not participate in the proceedings throughout. The authority set the petitioner ex parte and ultimately, an ex parte order was passed on 25.8.2006, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with full back wages.3. The petitioners filed an application being A.P.S.E. Case No. 5 of...
Tag this Judgment!G. Santhosh Reddy Vs. Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Univer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALT54
Anir R. Dave, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 23-5-2008 the appellant-petitioner had filed W.P. No. 12090 of 2008, which has been rejected for the reason that it was premature.2. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the impugned order.3. The show-cause notice dated 23-5-2008 has already been replied to by the appellant-petitioner on 2-6-2008. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1 that so far no action has been taken in pursuance of the aforestated show-cause notice.4. We are sure that before passing any final order in pursuance of the show-cause notice, the respondents-authorities shall consider the reply given by the appellant-petitioner dated 2-6-2008. The concerned respondents are also directed to pass a reasoned order and the order should be communicated to the appellant-petitioner. Till final decision is taken in pursuance of the show-cause notice and the same is communicated to the appellant-petitioner, no further promotion...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna M. Dixit and ors. Vs. Anandi Bai V. Dixit and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD362
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court admitted the civil revision petition on 13.6.2008 and granted interim injunction in CMP No. 2821/2008. The 5th respondent - NCL Homes rep. by its M.D. filed CRP MP No. 3779/2008 praying for vacation of the interim injunction granted by this Court in CMP No. 2821/ 2008 in CRP No. 2149/2008.2. It is stated that the other respondents also had been served and none represents the other respondents. At the request of the Counsel on record, the civil revision petition itself is being disposed of finally, though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory.3. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would submit that may be that the Developer may not be a sharer, but however, since in a partition action, such party also would be a necessary party for the reason that the Developer would get some limited interest in the immovable property by virtue of the agreement entered into between the said Developer an...
Tag this Judgment!Pechetti Rambabu Vs. Shazamani Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD618
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The civil revision petition was admitted on 22.2.2008 and in CRP MP No. 1025/2008 interim stay was granted. CRP MP No. 1736/2008 is filed to vacate the interim stay dated 22.2.2008 made in CRP MP No. 1025/2008 in CRP No. 783/2008.2. The Counsel on record, Sri T.S. Anand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Udaya Bhasker representing Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in the C.R.P., made a request for disposal of the main civil revision petition and hence, the civil revision petition itself is being disposed of by this Court, though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory.3. Sri T.S. Anand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the learned VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam was unable to appreciate the scope and ambit of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel also would further maintain tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »