Andhra Pradesh Court November 2010 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.
The Nellore Zilla Praja Parishad Vs. the Govt. of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
Order: The petitioner, namely Nellore Zilla Parishad, represented by its Chairman, has filed this writ petition questioning the orders dated 14.10.2010, issued by respondent No.1, namely the Government of Andhra Pradesh, entertaining the revision, filed by respondent No.6, and pending thereof, staying the auction of Reach No. 50, Kotitheerdham, Chejarla Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, in pursuance of the auction notification No. 864/S/10-4, dated 05.10.2010 of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same, and permit respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to proceed with the auction in terms of the auction notification dated 05.10.2010. The petitioner states that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 24, Industries and Commerce (M.1) Department, dated 12.02.2007, rationalizing the procedure for conducting sand auctions. As per Clause 12 thereof, auctions would be conducted every year, for a period of one year from...
Marapu Subba Rao Vs. the Tahsildar, Mandavalli, Mandavalli Mandal, Kri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite interim stay granted by the Special Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, respondent No.1 has not been supplying kerosene to the petitioner. The facts pleaded by the petitioner would reveal that his Kerosene Hawker Licence was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide his order, dated 04.01.2010. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Special Commissioner, Civil Supplies, and vide his CCS.Proc.No.E2/222/2010, dated 16.01.2010, he stayed the operation of the order of respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the said order, respondent No.1 has not been supplying the kerosene to the petitioner for sale. In my opinion, this writ petition is virtually in the nature of an execution petition. It is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to respect the orders passed by his superior authorities, more so, when such orders were passed in exercise of their quasi-judicial powers. If such...
Gade Laxmi and Others Vs. Yellishetti Krishna and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
: 1)These two appeals arise out of two awards dated 16.03.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal in O.P.Nos.219 of 1988 and 70 of 1989 respectively awarding compensation of Rs.52,500/- and Rs.62,500/- respectively to the claimants in two death cases arising out of the same accident which took place on 11.04.1988. The lower Tribunal found that driver of the accident vehicle was at fault and was responsible for this accident due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation amounts as against driver and owner only and disallowed the claim as against the injurer of the accident vehicle. 2) Facts relating to the insurance are not in dispute. The insured gave cheque towards premium to the agent by name Srinivasulu who issued cover note on 09.04.1988 on behalf of the insurance company. Though the insurance company did not file documents relating to these facts, R.W-1 who is an employee of the insurance company speaks to these ...
Sheelam Ramesh and Another Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
ORDER: Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. B. Mohana Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader, who is attached to the learned Advocate General and perused the material placed on record. This Court, on 02.11.2010, pending writ petition, made the following order: 1. The petitioners seek to issue writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioners before this Court and order their release by holding their continuous detention in prison as illegal and contrary to the orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 338 Home (Prisons-C) Department dated 24.7.2009 and judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 24436 of 2009 dated 16.12.2009. 2. The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and they are convicted of the offences punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC, Sec.27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 3(2)(i)(ii) and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activi...
Ajmeera Hari Naik Vs. Suman Rathod and Nine Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
: 1.This petition is filed under Section 81 r/w Section 100 (1)(a) and (d) (i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act 1951') to declare the election of the 1st respondent to 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency to be null and void and set aside the same and further declare that the petitioner has been duly elected as Member of 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency under Section 84 of the Act 1951. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be delineated as follows: 2.1.The election petitioner is a contesting candidate to 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency. In the said election, the petitioner was fielded from Indian National Congress Party and the 1st respondent was fielded from Telugu Desam Party. The election to the said Assembly Constituency was held on 16-04- 2009. The 1st respondent polled 56,014 votes and she was declared as Member of 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency. The petitioner got 29,582 votes ...
Shivraj M. Girglani and Others Vs. Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-oper ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: 1. The complainant No. 1, Shivraj M. Girglani was authorized to file this case on behalf of himself and his family members. He submitted that himself and his family members i.e. complainants 2 to 4 deposited their hard earned earning in different denominations in the opposite party co-op. society at varied rates of interest with maturity period of one year each as follows:S. No.NameFD. No.DateAmount Rs.1.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani236931.12.20032,00,0002.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani30241.6.20031,00,0003.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani07627.11.20055,00,0004.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani12031.2.20065,00,0005.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani211722.5.20063,00,0006.Sri Shivraj M. Girglani44362.11.20071,00,0007.Smt. Gunwanti M. Girglani27335.4.20042,00,0008.Smt. Gunwanti M. Girglani07617.11.20055,00,0009.Smt. Gunwanti M. Girglani12021.2.20065,00,00010.Mrs. Hira Kartak Dalwani095627.12.20052,00,00011.Smt. Devika Girglani41635.6.20072,00,000 Total Rs.:33,50,000 2. The first complainant submitted th...
Jalagadugula Eswara Rao Vs. Davala Surya Rao, S/O.Late Appanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER: 1.This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2006 passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2006 in O.S.No.293 of 2005 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners herein are the defendants in the Original Suit. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.82,399.99ps basing on the promissory note alleged to have been executed by one Jalagadugula Rajamma, W/o. Late Appanna - mother of the petitioners' herein. The petitioners' herein, in their written statement, have specifically averred that the respondent herein had forged and fabricated the alleged promissory note and taking advantage of the death of Jalagadugula Rajamma - mother of the petitioners' herein, got filed a suit into Court to have illegal gain. It is also specifically averred that the said promissory note was rank forged and fabricated document. 3. As seen from the record, it appears that the respondent herein, who was the plaintiff in the ...
V. Narayana Vs. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER: The petitioner occupied a very high position in the administration of one of the sacred organizations, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). However, his levels of morality appear to be totally disproportionate. The employees of the TTD formed a cooperative bank, the second respondent herein. The Executive Officer of the TTD is the Ex-officio Chairman of the second respondent. The petitioner raised Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as additional housing loan and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as general loan from the second respondent bank. As against this, he repaid Rs.7,967/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and sixty seven only) and Rs,2,200 (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) respectively. He retired from service on 30.6.2000. There was due of about Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) by the time he retired. The respondents deducted that amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Initially, he approached the District Consumer Foru...
Dora Tuljamma and Others Vs. Tanmeet Singh and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
: 1.The petitioners-claimants in O.P.No.483 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, preferred this appeal assailing the order therein dated 24.8.2001 whereby their claim petition was allowed in part granting a total compensation of Rs.1,11,400/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum by fastening joint and several liability on the respondents to pay the said compensation amount. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The facts in brief are that on 24.3.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on his scooter to go to Ismailkhanpet. While so, a lorry bearing registration No.HR 38 C 9198 came from opposite side at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the scooter, as a result, the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. Sangareddy Rural P.S. registered a case in Crime No.28 of 1999 under Section 304-A IPC. 4. The first respondent is owner o...
M/S. Shakti Me-dor Limited Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
ORDER: The practice of entertaining Writ Petitions questioning the legality of a show- cause notice, stalling the proposed enquiry and retarding the investigative process to ascertain facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties, must be deprecated. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show- cause notice is non-est Writ Petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking, and as a matter of routine, and the petitioner should, invariably, be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands, highlighted in the Writ Petition, therein. (Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse1; Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy2; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai3; M/s Vasavi Business Combines v. Commissioner of Customs4; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Commercial (CT), (Audit), Hyderabad5) A show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action as it is not an adverse or...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »