Andhra Pradesh Court November 2015 Judgments
B. Ramakrishna Yadav and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ. 1. In view of the divergence of opinion expressed by two Division Benches, another Division Bench requested constitution of a Larger Bench to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question whether suppression of information by the candidate, applying for an employment, regarding his involvement in a criminal case, could be the ground for either rejecting his candidature or canceling his selection or terminating the service, if he has already been appointed? ? 2. Reference order was passed on 23.2.2005 in W.P. No.3004 of 2005. The order dated 8.2.2005 passed in O.A.No.6240 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal') is the subject-matter of the writ petition. The petitioners were selected as Police Constables and their names figured in the provisional selection list. Their selection, however, was cancelled on the ground of suppression of information regarding their involvement in criminal cases while submitting application...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sri Venkateshwara Rao and Others Vs. Principal Secretary Revenue (E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ. 1. The questions raised in these appeals and the PIL are common and hence by consent of learned counsel for the parties those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the PIL and in the Writ Appeals, the respondents are common. Since the petitioner, in the PIL, was not a party to the writ petitions (W.P.No.10823 of 2015 and W.P.No.21273 of 2015), he has filed Miscellaneous Petitions seeking leave of this Court to file writ appeals against the common order dated 16.07.2015 passed therein. 3. The prayer in the PIL reads thus:- It is prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the government in reviving the LOI of the 3rd respondent for establishing a IMFI manufactory by extending the validity of LOI from time to time contrary to the rules 5 and 6 of A.P. distillery (Manufacture of IMFL other than beer and wine) rules 2006 8and consequ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. T.R. Jewellery, a proprietary concern Rep. by its Proprietor Thir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Common Judgment: (C. Praveen Kumar, J.) Disagreeing with the view expressed in W.P.No.5347 of 2014 another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24.07.2014 in W.P.Nos.17589 and 17625 of 2014 referred the following question to be decided by a Full Bench. In terms of the said order of reference, these Writ Petitions are posted before us to answer the question framed in the order of reference, which is as under : Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction in Corporation area can assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset and pass an order in favour of secured creditor for the purpose of taking possession or control of any secured asset? ? Taking Writ Petition No.17589 of 2014 as a lead petition, we proceed to decide the reference. An application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act ?) came to be filed by a Secured Credito...
Tag this Judgment!M. Koteswara Rao Vs. State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1) This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.412 of 2011 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur which is the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2) The learned Magistrate taken cognizance pursuant to the private complaint after accepting the sworn statement affidavit of the complainant. The contentions urged in seeking to quash the cognizance and issuing of the summons by the learned Magistrate against the accused, in the petition are that the Magistrate ought not to have been taken cognizance for no territorial jurisdiction and erred in condoning the delay of five days and erred in taking cognizance on the affidavits instead of recording sworn statements. So far as the jurisdiction aspect concerned, there is no quarrel on the proposition existing prior to the Dasarath Roop Singh V. State of Mah...
Tag this Judgment!Raisunna Begum and Others Vs. Premsukhai Jain and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Common Judgment:(Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.) 1. The question referred to this Bench is whether in case of acquisition of land by municipal authorities, for road widening, on consent of the landlord of a shop any notice is necessary to be given to the tenant in the shop? ?. The question was referred by a Full Bench by order dated 22.02.2007 in W.A.No.453 of 2007. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to reference, in the writ appeal, are that the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.25333 of 2001, had issued a notice dt.7.12.2001 to petitioner therein, who was a tenant of the shop owned by the 3rd respondent therein, informing him that the owner of the shop handed over some portion of site under his occupation for road widening purpose to the Municipal Corporation free of cost and that he obtained permission for construction of fresh structure consisting of stilt (row shops and partly parking)+three upper floors (residential flats), and so the petitioner shoul...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Rao Vs. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Razole Depot and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
1. Petitioner is a driver in Razole Depot of respondent-Corporation. In this Writ Petition petitioner is assailing the order of suspension dated 05.10.2015. 2. The facts giving rise to institution of this writ petition are as under. On 27.08.2015, petitioner was given duty of Razole “ Sakinetapally route on Bus No.AP 28Z 2630. The total journey required to be covered was 402 KMs. After carrying the Bus for three trips of 360 KMs, in the last trip bus came to Razole Bus Stand at 1930 hours and has to start the bus within 10 minutes for the next trip. When petitioner attempted to start the Bus, the bus did not start due to engine failure. Accordingly, petitioner informed the Garage Superintendent, who sent the Mechanic to look into the mechanical problem of the bus. As the bus required repairs, it was carted into Garage at 2010 hours. Another bus was provided and petitioner completed the scheduled service by undertaking Palakolu trip. Alleging that petitioner indulged in mixing wat...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vishnu Murthy Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
1. Petitioner is a driver of Respondent Corporation. In this Writ Petition, petitioner assails the order of suspension from service dated 12.10.2015. 2. The facts giving rise to institution of this Writ Petition are as under. On 02.10.2015 petitioner was booked to travel along with another driver on Bus No. AP 30 Z 0019 from Amalapuram to Srisailam and return. The bus did not have conductor. One of the drivers on duty was also required to attend to issuance of tickets to the passengers. On the fateful day, petitioner was in-charge to issue tickets to passengers by collecting appropriate fare as already determined. The bus reached Srisailam on 03.10.2015. For return journey, two persons approached the petitioner for providing seats in the bus. They were asked to sit in seat nos.13 and 14. After some time the said passengers have gone for taking tea and came back and informed the petitioner that deluxe bus service is now available and they intend to travel in the said bus. The bus return...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shyam Sunder Vs. APSRTC, rep. by its MD and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Common Order: 1. K.Shyam Sunder, Superintendent (Mech), in the official respondents-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short) filed these two writ petitions. Therefore, they are disposed of by the following common order. 2. W.P.No.26007 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of mandamus questioning the order dated 30-7-2012 whereby and whereunder he was ignored for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mech) despite his selection to the promotional post which has been notified in Notification No.MEDI/255(2)/2012-PO-II, dated 28-3-2012, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue a direction to the official respondents-Corporation to promote him as Assistant Engineer (Mech). 3. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.21093 of 2012 for issuance of a Writ of mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 04-7-2012 served on the petitioner on 09-7-2012 whereby and whereunder he was rev...
Tag this Judgment!V. Geetha Vs. Bandarupalli Narayana Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
The plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 02-06-2015 in I.A.No.102 of 2015 in O.S.No.1360 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The respondents are defendants in O.S.No.1360 of 2014 and the suit was filed by the petitioner herein as plaintiff for cancellation of a registered sale deed bearing document No.1406 of 1998 of Sub-Registrar's Office, Gunadala, Vijayawada. Along with the plaint, a notarized copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.823 of 1987 executed by Valluru Chandra Sekhara Rao dated 23-02-1987 in favour of the plaintiff and her parents was filed. The 1st defendant filed I.A.No.102 of 2015 seeking a direction from the Court to the plaintiff to produce original registered sale deed No.823 of 1987 dated 23-02-1987 to enable him to inspect the same and file a written statement. A counter was filed stating that the original document which was executed when the plaintiff was a mino...
Tag this Judgment!Satti Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Mallidi Venkata Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
The defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2010 is the petitioner herein and the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, seeking a preliminary decree for Rs.8,95,101/- against the defendant based on equitable mortgage created in respect of the property of dry land of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in R.S.No.437/1 and an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.437/2 situated in Penugonda village and Mandal, West Godavari District. When PW.1 was being examined, he wanted to mark the document styled as Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed ?, which was executed subsequent to the execution of promissory note dated 28-03-2008 and the defendant objected to the marking of the same. The defendant raised the objection that the said document is compulsorily registerable as required under Section 17 (1) (c) of the Registration Act. There was no dispute with regard to the document being unregistered. The trial Court overruled the objection by order dated 27-01-2015 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »