Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Roads an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT637
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J1. This is an application to condone the delay of 920 days in filing petition to revive WA(SR). No. 45015 of 2006.2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, Anantapur and the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Anantapur, are the applicants. The respondents filed WP. No. 15957 of 1993 for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the applicants herein in paying compensation to them in respect of Ac.9.56 cents in Sy. Nos. 210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 of Narayanapuram, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respondents also sought for a direction to the applicants to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.3. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 12.10.2004, allowed the writ petition and directed the applicants to pass award in accordance with law in respect of Ac.8.46 cents, within a period of six mon...
Punna Sujatha Vs. Smt. Musham Sakkubai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT431
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Elections to the Gram Panchayat, Bollepally, were held on 02-08-2006. The petitioner and the 1st respondent filed nominations for being elected as members from Second Ward. The petitioner was declared elected as Ward Member. The 1st respondent raised an objection to the nomination of the petitioner, on the ground that she (petitioner) had given birth to a third child, after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The objection was overruled and the nomination was accepted. In the elections, the petitioner secured 103 votes, and the 1st respondent 86votes.2. The 1st respondent filed O.P. No. 4 of 2006, challenging the election of the petitioner as ward member. The main ground urged on behalf of the 1strespondent was that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act. It was alleged that the third child of the petitioner was born on 12-06-1995.3. The petitioner filed a c...
B. Krishna Reddy S/O. Venkata Rami Reddy Vs. M.D. Sudheendra Rao S/O. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT26
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 27-2-2009 ordered urgent notice.2. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/contesting respondent entered appearance.3. Heard Sri Hanumantha Rayudu, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.4. Sri Hanumantha Rayudu, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner/1st defendant would maintain that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool totally erred in keeping I.A.No.385/2008 pending which was filed to set aside exparte decree made in O.S. No. 33/2005 even though the application for condo nation of delay was allowed on 14-3-2008. The Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have seen that in spite of pendency of I.A. No. 385/2008, the 1st respondent is further proceeding with the execution of the decree made in O.S. No. 33/2005 and if the 1st respondent is permitted to further p...
Wipro Ge Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT738
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Sree Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, the 4th respondent, intended to procure and install 'Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scanner with integrated CT Scanner'. It entrusted the work of procurement and implementation to the A.P. Health and Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, the 3rd respondent. The latter kept the tender document for procurement of PET, on its web site. The facility of downloading the document was provided between 20th and 27th August 2008. Tenders were to be received within that period. The process involved two stages, viz., technical bid and price bid. The technical evaluation comprised of not only verification of the data submitted by the tenderers, but also verification of sample. The price bids of those who qualified in the tender bids, were to be opened on 05.09.2008. The specifications of the equipment were mentioned in the tender document itself.2. The petitioner is a joint venture between...
Kulluri Yadagiri Vs. Sagarla Saidulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT485
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions are directed against the order, dated 03.11.2008, passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P. No. 20 of 2006.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 25611 of 2008 is the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 27561 of 2008, and vice versa. Other respondents are common. Hence, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 25611 of 2008.3. Election to the Office of Sarpanch of Yellareddy Gram Panchayat, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District was held on 02.08.2006. The petitioner and the 1st respondent contested in the election, and the former was declared elected by a margin of 30 votes. The 1st respondent filed the O.P., for the relief of setting aside the election of the petitioner, and consequently, to declare him as having been elected. Through its order, dated 03.11.2008, the Tribunal had set aside the election of the petitioner. However, it refused to declare that the 1st respondent is elected. Instead, it directed tha...
C.S. Radha Purnima D/O. C.Y. Sastry in Defence Laboratory School Vs. M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT112
ORDERSanjay Kumar, J.1. Is the petitioner's termination from service invalid in law for want of an enquiry?This is the short question falling for consideration in this writ petition.2. The petitioner, a Teacher in the Defence Laboratories School, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, the third respondent, since 07.06.1988, sought extension of leave from 31.01.1997 to 06.02.1997 citing medical problems.The Defence Laboratories Education Society, the second respondent, which has administrative control over the third respondent school, acting through its Secretary, responded by issuing the show-cause notice dated 22.02.1997 stating that it had come to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which led to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against her; she was apprehended by the police on 31.01.1997 and had been remanded to judicial custody. It was pointed out that in the light of these facts, the petitioner's statement that she was unwell during the said period was incorrect; the m...
Ketha Sujathamma W/O. Narasimha Reddy and ors. Vs. B. Rammurthy S/O. N ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT747
ORDERVilas v. Afzulpurkar, J.1. Respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 in LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 before the Special Tribunal under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (Principal District Judge), Nellore are the petitioners herein. A Writ of Certiorari is sought for against the orders passed by the Special Tribunal as above in LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 dated 01.08.2007 as confirmed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in LGA. No. 21 of 2007 dated 04.11.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of schedule property, which is Plot No. 213 at Bhaktavatsala Nagar, admeasuring an extent of 33-1/3 ankanams of vacant site in Sy. Nos. 440, 441, 431, 438 and 439. The aforesaid land grabbing case was filed on the allegations that originally the petition schedule property was allotted to the father ...
Neera Agarwal Vs. Mahender Kumar Agarwal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT518
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel representing revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions and Sri Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing respondents in all these civil revision petitions.2. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel representing the revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the grounds which had been raised in these civil revision petitions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and inasmuch as judicious approach had not been adopted by the learned Judge and further in the light of the facts and circumstances well explained since the reliefs prayed for in these applications being highly essential for establishing the case of the revision petitioner, the dismissal of these applications cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to th...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Dept. of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT429
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. Heard.2. When the writ petition is taken up for consideration, Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19615 of 2003 dated 24-09-2008.3. In Baldev Singh v. Union of India : AIR2006SC531 the appellant therein belonging to Indian Army was terminated from service because of the conviction and though acquitted in criminal case later, he was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. The authorities therein also stated that the claims and dues admissible will be settled after the government sanction is received. That was only an indication that only after the government sanction for regularization is received the claim will be settled and nowhere there was admission of the entitlement of the appellant therein. On excluding the said period the appellant therein since not rendered the requisite service of 15 yea...
Gannavarapu Ramana Reddy. Vs. Anam Venkata Appareddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT580
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant and Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel representing respondent. 2. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner- appellant as against an order made in I.A. No. 581 of 2008 in A.S. No. 5 of 2008, dated 04.8.2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience).3. The said application was filed by the petitioner-appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from causing obstruction to the petitioner in using the pathway on the north-east of the respondent plot to cultivate his land. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the counter, recorded re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »