Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Kulwant Singh Chatwal and ors. Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT629
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, who served the Indian Army, retired from the service between 1946 and 1976. All of them are domiciled in Andhra Pradesh and have been drawing pension for the service they have rendered in the Indian Army. In order to rehabilitate the Ex.Servicemen, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 25, Revenue Department, dated 23.10.1952, by which it assigned an extent of Ac.5, 977-03 guntas in Jawahamagar village to the Department of Labour. The Government, later on, framed operating guidelines in order to effectuate the purpose of rehabilitation of Ex.Servicemen, vide G.O.Ms. No. 743, Revenue, dated 30-4-1963. The said G.O., laid down the eligibility criteria, the extents for and the conditions subject to which the assignment of agricultural land shall be made in favour of the Ex.Servicemen. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1573, Home (Labour-IV) Department, dated 18-7-1966, in supersession of all the previous orders a...
Grameena Santhala Abhivruddi Society Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT61
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner society, which is conducting cattle market on every Sunday in Gazi Nagar Gram panchayat filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent - District Collector (P.W.), Nalgonda, dated 25.1.2008 directing the Gazi Nagar Gram Panchayat not to allow the petitioner society to conduct cattle market on Sunday is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under:By resolution, dated 18.01.2007, passed by the 5th respondent (hereinafter referred to as Gazi Nagar Gram Panchayat) in its General Body Meeting, the petitioner society was granted the leasehold rights for a period of four years from 2007 to 2011 to conduct cattle market once in a week within the area of operation of Gazi Nagar Gram Panchayat, D.Konda Mandal, Nalgonda District. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner society, having paid the requisite amount, has been conducting cattle market on every Sunday at Gazi Nagar...
Khadar Baba Fancy Stores Vs. G.P.G. Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP274; 2008(5)ALD711
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned Counsel representing revision petitioner and Sri Koka Srinivas Kumar, learned Counsel representing first respondent.2. This Court on 7.9.2007 made the following order:Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner/judgment-debtor No. 1 (defendant No. 1).Notice before admission, returnable in three weeks.The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is also permitted to take out personal notice by R.P.A.D., to the respondents and their Counsel before the Court below and file proof thereof into the Court.There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 67 of 2005 in O.S. No. 315 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, until further orders.List the civil revision petition for 'Admission' on 28.9.2007.3. On 2.11.2007 while admitting the civil revision petition and directing listing of the civil revision petition for final hearing in usual course this Court in CRP MP No. 1079 of...
Sundaragiri Ramulu Vs. Sundaragiri Siddi Rajaiah @ Siddi Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT314
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 17 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against his brother, the respondent herein, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that, there was a family partition, but the petitioner and respondent have acquired certain items of property, jointly, subsequent to partition, and that the respondent started claiming them as his exclusive properties. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegation of the petitioner. The Trial Court framed the issues, and the trial of the suit is about to commence.2. The petitioner filed I. A. No. 254 of 2008, under Order 18 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the respondent to commence his evidence on issue No. 1. He stated that, since it is the respondent, who pleaded that the suit schedule property was already partitioned, the burden is upon him, to prove the same. The petition was oppose...
Narayanappa S/O Thimmaiahgari Thimmaiah, Vs. Madepalli Anjanappa S/O A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT531
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory, the counsel on record made elaborate submissions with a further request for final disposal of the second appeal itself.2. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, representing Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Counsel representing appellants in the second appeal had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the reliefs granted being beyond the pleadings of the parties and the reliefs prayed for in the suit, such reliefs cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the present suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the findings recorded by the appellate court on the question of res judicata also cannot be sustained. The counsel also relied on certain decisions.3. On the c...
P. Laxmamma Vs. Maharastra State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT43
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioner questions the notice issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 02-01 -2001.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued notice, dated 02-01 -2001, stating that respondents 1 and 2 sanctioned term loan of Rs. 94.60 lakhs in favour of M/s. Glowtex Dyestuffs Private Limited-3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent deposited title deeds of the petitioner by creating equitable mortgage relating to the residential house of the petitioner in Sy. No. 280 bearing House No. 1-4-249/154/14/2 situated at Bachirag Madhavaram Shivar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.3. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent failed to pay the amount and the entire amount due and payable is Rs. 1,46,90,336.50 ps. as on 03-10-2000 and the said amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount, failing which, the Corporation will take possession of the residential house of the petitioner, which was m...
C. Basaiah Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD518; 2009(1)ALT183; [2009(121)FLR357]
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Conductor, in the Tandur Depot of APSRTC, in the year 1988. When he was conducting a service from Nadaram to Kodangal on 31.3.1992, the bus was checked, between the stages 9 and 8. A charge-sheet was issued on 9.4.1992, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner did not issue tickets to two passengers, having collected fare of Rs. 2/- each, from them. After causing domestic enquiry, the respondent passed an order dated 12.3.1993, directing the removal of the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner approached the Labour Court III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), and filed I.D. No. 809 of 1993. The Labour Court passed an award dated 20.8.1997, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner, with continuity of service and attendance benefits, but without back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service.3. The respondent...
Alusani Mohan Kumar Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP276
G. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner herein was elected as President of the Mandal Praja Parishad (for short, 'the Mandal Praja Parishad'), Yellareddypet on 11.6.2006 and he assumed the office on 22.7.2006. The respondents 4 to 17 herein, who wanted to move a no confidence motion against the petitioner, gave a written notice of their intention to the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, on 14.7.2008. However, the 2nd respondent by order dated 17-7-2008 refused to take further steps for convening a meeting to move the no confidence motion on the ground that such motion within two years from the date of assumption of the office of the President by the writ petitioner is impermissible under the first proviso to Section 245(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act').2. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 17 herein submitted another notice of intention dated 23.7.2008 to move the motion of no-confidence in Form 11 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms. No. 137 dated 27.3.1997. On the b...
M. Lingeswara Reddy and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD768
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of different extents of land situated in Nandikotkur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. It is not in dispute that the said land to an extent of Acs.33.84 cents was utilized by the respondents for the purpose of allotment of house sites to weaker sections in the year 2003. Though no proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioners were offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre. However, the beneficiaries were put in possession of the land in question without paying even the said amount offered to the petitioners.Thereafter, in pursuance of several representations made by the petitioners requesting the respondents to pay the compensation, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 18.4.2005 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 20.4.2005. Subsequently, in the month of December 2005, some of the...
K. Madhusudan Vs. Chairman/Person In-charge, Andhra Pradesh State Hand ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD653; 2008(5)ALT157
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was working as Marketing Officer in the A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. He was removed from service vide proceedings dated 17-3-2008, issued by the 2nd respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition.2. A charge memo dated 18-3-2000 was issued to the petitioner, whereunder it was alleged that he incurred expenditure contrary to the settled norms, and allowed a Contractor to lift certain items, in violation of the terms of contract. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 6-10-2000. A show cause notice was issued on 12-2-2002, stating inter alia that the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 31-12-2001, and accepting the findings, the punishment of dismissal from service is proposed. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 5-4-2003. According to him, no inquiry was conducted, much less an opportunity was given to him. He has also requested that the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »