Andhra Pradesh Court January 2012 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.
D.Prakasam, So.Viswanatham and Two OThe Vs. the Chief Manager, Allahab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
V.V.S.RAO; G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J.ORDER:1. A short question prone to recur often, arises for consideration in this Writ Petition filed against the demand notice dated 21.11.2011 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter, the SARFAESI Act or the Act), by the authorised officer (Chief Manager) of Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad (hereafter the Bank). Being in the nature of a show cause notice, ordinarily a writ would not lie against such a notice issued in compliance with the statutory requirement. By impugned notice, the petitioners were called upon to discharge the entire liability to the tune of Rs.27,42,869.07 ps from the petitioners to the respondent-Bank. The possession notice to proceed further and the action as contemplated under the Act would follow only when the amount demanded is not paid. As such, the notice itself does not result in any consequence or causes prejudice to the pe...
Smt. Amarthalur Yesu Mariamma Vs. the Government of A.P.,rep. by Its P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.ORDER :1. Heard Sri D. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The Sub-Collector, Tenali, through his notification, dated 19.12.2011, invited applications from Scheduled Castes-General candidates for appointment as a fair price shop dealer at Kollapalem Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Tenali Division, Guntur District. Applications were received till 05.00 p.m. on 03.01.2012. The notification itself made it clear that the written test will be conducted at the Sub-Collector's Office at 10.30 a.m. on 08.01.2012 and the eligible candidates will be informed for attending to the interviews to be held later on. The writ petitioner is one such candidate, who has responded to the said notification for the fair price shop dealership at Kollapalem. The written test was conducted on 08.01.2012 and results have been published on the same day. The following five candidates are declared as e...
V. Narasimha Rao Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh,indust
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
COMMON ORDER: 1. These five Writ Petitions relate to the use of additional ramps, by the Didugu Sand and Boat Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the "Society"), at Chevitikallu, Kunikinapadu and Popuru reaches, all three of them located in Krishna District (hereinafter called "the additional ramps"). 2. Facts, in brief, are that the Amaravathi sand reach is situated on the right flood bank of the Krishna River in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. A notification dated 05.03.2010 was issued for auction of leasehold rights to conduct sand quarry operations in respect of Amaravathi sand reach. The notification listed six ramps, i.e., (1) Vykunthapuram, (2) Amaravathi, (3) Dharanikota, (4) Didugu, (5) Malladi and (6) Munugodu, as the notified ramps to be utilized by the auction purchaser. In the auction, the Society was declared as the highest bidder for one year commencing from 01.04.2010. A lease agreement, as stipulated under Rule 9-I of the Rules, was entere...
D.Prakasam, S/O.Viswanatham and Two OThe Vs. the Chief Manager, Allaha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 201.31.01.2012 D.Prakasam, S/o.Viswanatham and two others. The Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank,Hyderabad 029. Counsel for Petitioners: Sri K.Mallikarjuna Rao Counsel for Respondent: Sri B.Damodhar Reddy Cases referred 1. (2004) 4 SCC 31.2. AIR 201.AP 3.:2009. (6) ALD 61.:2010. 1) ALT 32.ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) A short question prone to recur often, arises for consideration in this Writ Petition filed against the demand notice dated 21.11.2011 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter, the SARFAESI Act or the Act), by the authorised officer (Chief Manager) of Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad (hereafter the Bank). Being in the nature of a show cause notice, ordinarily a writ would not lie against such a notice issued in compliance with the statutory requirement. By impugn...
P. Appala Raju Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, C.B.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
NOUSHAD ALI, J.JUDGMENT:1. The appellant/accused-officer, a Public Servant, was tried on two charges under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") in C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"). The first charge is under Section 7 of the Act; and the second charge, which is connected with the first one, is under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, both based on the allegations of bribery and trap.2. The trial Court, after considering the matter, by its judgment dated 20.1.2005 convicted the appellant of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act; and further sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- an...
S.D.Samiulla and Two Others Vs. K.L.Narayana and Two ors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. The petitioners who are third parties to O.S.No.172 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the original defendant No.1, in whose place respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein-his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed I.A.No.457 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as defendant Nos.4 to 6.2. The petitioners pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 23.07.2007, from one N.Srinivasa Raju, to whom defendant No.2 was stated to have sold the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court below has rejected their application for impleadment on the ground that the petitioners who purchased the property during the pendency of the suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale are not entitled to come on record as the transaction is hit by the doctrine of l...
R. Raghunatha Reddy and Another Vs. R. Ramakrishna Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 19-8-2011 in I.A.No.52/2011 in O.S.No.5/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.2. The petitioners are defendants in the above noted suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed I.A.No.52/2011 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose cause of action. The lower Court rejected the said application. Hence, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.3. At the hearing, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in the plaint, the petitioners have not disclosed which are ancestral properties and which are self-acquired properties and that in the absence of such details, the plaint has not satisfied the requirements of Order ...
C.G.Swamy and Another. Vs. the A.P.S.R.T.C. Represented by Its Mana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
ORDER: 1. The writ petitioners are questioning the action of the respondents compelling them to perform the dual job of conductor and driver with TIMS machine and seeking a direction to the respondents not to insist the petitioners to perform the dual job of drivers and conductors with TIMS services. 2. The first petitioner filed an affidavit and stated that he is authorized to depose on behalf of the second petitioner also. 3. The brief case of the petitioners as seen from the affidavit and from the arguments of their learned counsel is as follows: The first petitioner was appointed as driver on 7-3-1997 in Badvel depot, The second petitioner was appointed as driver in the month of May, 1999 and has been working in Jammalamadugu depot. They are appointed as drivers under direct recruitment process as per the regulations. The required qualification is 5th class and they must be able to read and write in a regional language i.e., Telugu or Urudu. They must possess a valid driving licenc...
S.D.Samiulla and Two Others Vs. K.L.Narayana and Two Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4855 o30. 01.2012 S.D.Samiulla and two others K.L.Narayana and two others ^Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora !Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy Cases referred:2011. (6) ALD 32.2010 (5) ALD 2.(SC) ORDER: The petitioners who are third parties to O.S.No.172 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the original defendant No.1, in whose place respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein-his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed I.A.No.457 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as defendant Nos.4 to 6. The petitioners pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 23.07.2007, from one N.Srinivasa Raju, to whom defendant No.2 was stated to have sold the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court below h...
M/S. Indusind Bank, Rep. by Its Manager Vs. M/S. M. Swaroopa and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.862/2008 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad, opposite party no.1 filed this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant availed the finance facility from the opposite parties for purchasing a TVS Scooty. The opposite parties financed a sum of Rs.31,000/- and have imposed a sum of Rs.4,028/- towards finance charges, mentioning the agreement value at Rs.35,028/-. The opposite party collected the post dated cheques for the monthly instalments at Rs.2,919/- per month. Though the opp.parties have collected the amount towards the registration charges in the finance amount itself they have not arranged for the permanent registration. The vehicle was delivered on 12.7.2007 and though the complainant paid 8 instalments out of 12 instlaments the vehicle was not registered by the opp.parties. The complainant requested the opp.parties to get the permanent registration and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »