Andhra Pradesh Court February 2009 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.
immadi Chetty Ravindra Vs. Sri Kamakshi Devi Sametha,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT57
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. C.R.P.M.P. No. 7748 of 2008 is filed to vacate the interim suspension granted by this Court in C.R.P.M.P. No. 7431 of 2008, dated 16.12.2008. When this application to vacate interim suspension was coming up for hearing, the counsel on record Sri K. Ananda Rao, Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy and Sri V.T.M. Prasad made certain submissions and a further request was made that the civil revision petition itself may be disposed of finally. Hence, the civil revision petition had been taken up for final hearing even at the stage of interlocutory and the same is being disposed of by this Court.2. Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing vacate petitioner, second respondent in the civil revision petition, raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel, no doubt, would contend that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and also had take...
K. Muthili Rani W/O. Sri. K.K. Sagar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT435
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.12.2007 passed in O.A.No.1106 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to direct the respondents not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 19.04.2004 issued by the second respondent till conclusion of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 12 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner, while working as Commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad, was suspended from service for having found in possession of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to her known sources of income, and a charge memo dated 19.04.2004 was issued to her. The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') also filed a case against her under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was register...
A.P. Verma and ors. Vs. K. Dasaradhi Gupta and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT698
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Central Excise Department challenging the order dated 17-11-2008 passed in CP No. 75 of 2008 in O.A. No. 1274 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad.2. The applicant in O.A. No. 1274 of 2002, first respondent herein, was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the in the petitioners-Department under direct recruitment quota in the year 1978 and was promoted to the cadre of Tax Assistant in the year 1988. As per the recruitment Rules in vogue he was called for Physical and Endurance Tests and interview for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade on Executive side viz., Inspector of Central Excise for the first time in the year 1986. The respondent No. 1 appeared for the physical test on 25-2-1986 and qualified himself in the Physical and Endurance tests. However, the DPC found him not fit for promotion to the post of Inspector. In the year 1987 again t...
Addanki Hanumantha Rao and ors. Vs. Addanki Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT415
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioners and Sri M.S.N. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the respondents. 2. This Revision is coming up for Admission. This Revision is preferred by the Revision petitioners as against an order made by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ongole in C.M.A. No. 31/2008 dated 6-1-2009.3. Sri C. Ramachander Raju, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the appellate Court in stead of allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by setting aside the order made by the trial Court in I.A. No. 525/2008 in O.S. No. 69/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, totally erred in dismissing the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The learned Counsel also would maintain that both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court totally ignored the object of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' fo...
T. Srinivasa Rao, Railway Contractor, Chinaganjam Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT724
ORDERNooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. These two applications can be dealt with together and decided not merely because the parties to the dispute are the same, but because they arise out of common set of facts.2. The applicant in both the cases is the contractor while the respondents are the Indian Railways and its officers. Two civil engineering works viz., '(1) Proposed high level platform on down loop at Nellore (2) Proposed remodeling of Station building, additions and alterations to sub-way at Nellore' have been awarded to the applicant. Consequently two separate agreements (1) Agreement No. 16/S/BZA/89, dated 28.3.1989 and (2) Agreement No. 68/S/BZA/88, dated 15.6.1988 respectively concerning the above two works have been executed by and between the parties. According to the applicant, for reasons wholly attributable to the respondents such as not finalizing and furnishing the drawings and the necessary technical details and specifications, the execution of the works were got delayed c...
A.P. Civil Liberties Committee (Apclc) Rep. by Its President, Mr. S. S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT754
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.Competing interpretations of recurrent-contemporaneous events:1. Since the inception of the naxalite movement in Andhra Pradesh in 1969, 551 police personnel were killed including one DIG, two S.Ps, five D.S.Ps; 16 Inspectors and 49 Sub-Inspectors. 2928 civilians were killed; public and private property worth hundred of crores of rupees was destroyed; the extremist groups indulged in mindless violence and committed brutal murders. The naxal violence increased since 1991. They deliberately ambush and attack police with sophisticated firearms and explosives. In order to create terror the Maoists are also targeting functionaries of ruling political parties and killing them brutally - (counter affidavit of the Director General of Police in W.P. No. 15419/06 including Annexures 2 and 7)2. The State Executive for the first time started extra-legal killing which is popularly known as Encounter since 1968 and as on today in the name of alleged encounter the State has snat...
The Deputy General of Police, Kurnool Range and Four ors. Vs. R.S. Mad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)ALT530
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Government seeking to quash the decision rendered in O.A. No. 8566 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.2. The respondent herein, had approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare the action of the first respondent therein-The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, in issuing the impugned suspension orders vide C. No. C2/346/2008/R.O.O. No. 648/2008 dated 26.9.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently to set aside the same.3. The Tribunal allowed the O.A on the ground that the suspension was effected without application of mind and instead the authorities could have resorted to transfer him to a far off place only with a view to see that the applicant does not tamper the records during the course of enquiry. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent while working at D.A.R., ...
Suntru Somi Reddy Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hig ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2102
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-05-2006 in S.C.No.35 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavary, Rajahmundry, wherein the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:3. The accused is a resident of Ramannavalasa and the deceased-Pallala Kannamreddy is a resident of Bodigagondi village. The accused is close relative of the deceased being the nephew of the mother of the deceased. About one year prior to the occurrence, the accused developed illicit intimacy with the mother of the deceased and it was known to one and all. The accused used to visit the house of the deceased now and then to meet the mother of the deceased. About one month prior to the occurrence, the mother of the deceased l...
Gontia Kirshna Murthy Vs. Smt. V. Lakshmi Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT560
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02-12-2006 in E.A. No. 145 of 2006 in E.P. No. 101 of 2004 in O.S. No. 69 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur.2. The suit was filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 05-09-2002 and the same was decreed on 03-01-2004. Pursuant thereto, the revision petitioner/decree holder filed E.P.No. 101 of 2004 for realization of the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property. Pending the Execution Petition, the Judgment Debtor/respondent herein filed E.A. No. 145 of 2006 under Section 151 CPC to stop the sale claiming that the E.P. Schedule property being an assigned land cannot be sold or transferred in view of the prohibition under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act').3. The Decree Holder/revision petitioner filed a counter stating that the prohibiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›