Andhra Pradesh Court April 2012 Judgments

Sri Vijaya Bhavani Adarsha Mahila Mandali and Others Vs. the Commissio ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Jusitce Ghulam Mohammed) These writ petitions, arose out of a common set of facts and seek identical reliefs and hence they are heard together. 2. Writ Petition No.18083 of 2003 was filed by Sri Vijaya Bhavani Adarsha Mahila Mandali, Sujatha Nagar, Bypass road, Ongole, a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860; Writ Petition No.11063 of 2004 is instituted by an individual Sri P. Ravindranath, a devotee of Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Vari Temple (Sivalayam) at Ongole and Writ Petition No.21438 of 2004 of 2004 was instituted by Sri Nalluri Kishore, another devotee of the temple. 3. Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Vari Temple was an ancient Sivalayam at Ongole town. It was endowed with land of an extent of Ac.26.50 cents in Survey No.225 of Ongole town. There were also several other parcels of lands endowed to the said temple but, those lands were acquired by the State for various public purposes, such as for Nagarjuna ...

Chidella Venkateswarlu Vs. Gurram Pushpa Latha and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 30-01-2012, in IA.No.928 of 2011 in OS.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge, Ongole. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the above-mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 for recovery of certain amount based on a pronote. In the midst of the trial, after the petitioner was examined as DW.1, respondent No.1 has filed IA.No.928 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), for sending the suit pronote for opinion of a handwriting expert by comparing the signature on the pronote with the admitted signature of the petitioner on the written statement. The petitioner has objected to the said application mainly on the ground that the same is belated and that it is not possible to compare the signature on the written statement, which was subscribed six years after the alleged execution of the suit pronote. The lower Court, having discussed the ...

P.K.D. Prasad Rao and Another Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(4)ALD558; 2012(5)ALT719

Ghulam Mohammed The petitioner, a practising Advocate at Aswaraopet, in Khammam District, challenges the validity of sub-rule 4-A of Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, and the consequential proceedings dated 31.1.2002 issued by the 3rd respondent declining to consider his application for appointment as a Notary. The writ petitioner is said to have been enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 20th July 1989.  On 13.3.2000, he filed an application for considering his candidature for appointment as a Notary.  That request has been turned down by the 3rd respondent through his proceedings dated 31.1.2002 on the ground that sub-rule 4-A which has been incorporated under Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, had been brought into force with effect from 9th May 2001 and that the maximum number of notaries that can be appointed for the State of Andhra Pradesh was fixed at 575, whereas there were already 1256 notaries appointed and hence no fresh appointments ...

industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. and Others Vs. the Deputy Co ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

COMMON ORDER: V.V.S. Rao, J. The question of considerable significance that would arise in these writ petitions is whether the department of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Government of India (GoI) (hereafter the Dept.,) is entitled to claim that the central excise and customs duty arrears (excise/customs arrears, for brevity) have priority and precedence over the claims made by public sector Banks, either under the decree/recovery certificate granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘the DRT Act’) or while enforcing the security interest under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity the SARFAESI Act). Other common incidental issues would also arise and therefore, it is expedient to dispose of these by a common order. Back ground facts For better appreciation, we may sum up th...

Surisetti Lakshmi and Others Vs. the Government of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(4)ALD656; 2012(5)ALT461

The 1st petitioner is the sister of late Sesetti Appa Rao and petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of Appa Rao.  It is stated that the mother of the 1st petitioner and Appa Rao purchased an extent of Acs.2.25 cents of land in R.S.No.914 of Peddapuram Town, East Godavari District, way back in the year 1953, and executed a Will, dated 09.09.1978, in respect of Ac.1.25 cents in favour of the 1st petitioner. It is also stated that remaining Ac.1.00 of land was given to the 1st petitioner at the time of her marriage. The entire extent of Acs.2.25 cents was acquired by the Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), on 30.09.1994, for the establishment of an Industrial Area.  Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06.10.1994. There were disputes between the 1st petitioner, on the one hand, and her brother, Appa Rao, on the other h...

J. Ramachandraiah Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner, in this writ petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Memo.No.101771/Endts.III/A1/92-3 dt. 31.03.1994 confirming the orders of the second respondents in his Proceedings Roc.No.B2/17411/84 dated 23.01.1992 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to fix his seniority over and above respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) and also Divisional Engineer (Electrical) and give all the benefits of pay, allowances, promotion etc. 2. The petitioner’s brief case is that he passed L.E.E. Diploma in the year 1964 from S.V.Polytechnic, Tirupathi, and that he was selected for the post of Supervisor (Electrical) in the second respondent Devasthanams in the year 1968 and he was ranking first in the order of merit. Then, he passed B.Tech., (Electrical) Examination from S.V. University, Tirupati in the year 1978. He was declared as approved probationer in the cadre of Supervisor (Electrical) and was ...

Kalyanam Raja Gopal Vs. Andhra Bank, Government of India Underta

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24173 o04. 04.2012 Kalyanam Raja Gopal Andhra Bank, Government of India undertaking, Rep. by its General Manager (Personnel Department), Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: DR. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1. 2006 (1) JCR 42.JHR 2.2003 DC344. 3. (1990) 98 PLR 23.4. (2003) 5 SCC 45.5. (2005) 3 SCC 8.ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to declare the impugned letter dated 24.08.2009 under which petitioner's resignation is accepted, as bad in law and to quash the same and for consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner.2. Bare facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows: (a) Petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent bank on 08.07.1981 and at the relevant time he was serving as Senior Manager, Raichur Branch of the first respondent - bank in pursuance of orders dated 19.05.2009 post...

Gonipati Tatabbai Vs. Manukonda Atchayamma and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 27.07.2011, in I.A.No.113 of 2009 in O.S.No.18 of 2006, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Razole. The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title. The trial of the suit is yet to begin. He has filed I.A.No.113 of 2009 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit schedule property and to draw a line of demarcation between his lands and that of the defendants. This application was dismissed by the lower Court by observing that the application is premature. At the hearing, Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel, representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, questioned the reasoning of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Razole and contended that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed at any stage for making local inspection. In support of this contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in N.Savitramma and another v. B.Changa ...

Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Vs. Mahaboob Alam Khan and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

COMMON ORDER: V.V.S.Rao, J. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal (the Wakf Tribunal, for brevity). The contentious issues survive only in CRP Nos.1384 and 1444 of 2011. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (the Wakf Board, for brevity) and Dargah Hazrat Hussain Shah Vali (the Dargah, for brevity) join the issue with the petitioners therein. All other revisions do not require adjudication for one reason or the other. At the outset, be it recorded that a decision of the Wakf Tribunal shall be final and binding on the parties to the application and no appeal shall lie against the decision or order whether interim or otherwise given or made by the Wakf Tribunal (Sections 83(2), (7) and (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Wakf Act). Nonetheless the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act vests revisional jurisdiction in the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to a decision or order of ...

D. Sambasiva Rao Vs. Manyam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 29.10.2011 in I.A. No.2556 of 2011 in A.S. No. 61 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry.The petitioner is the appellant in the above mentioned appeal.  The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 271 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.The respondent filed the said suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession thereof and also for award of Rs.10,000/- per month towards damages for illegal use and occupation from 1.3.2005 till delivery of vacant possession and for suit costs.   The petitioner filed I.A. No. 2556 of 2011 in the appeal for leave of the Court to file additional written statement.  It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that even though in the written statement, he has averred that the suit is not maintainable in law, no specific plea was raised that out of the ...