Andhra Pradesh Court November 2015 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 Union of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. The Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission are the petitioners in this writ petition, which is directed against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.892 of 2015. O.A.No.892 of 2015 has been instituted by the first respondent herein seeking a declaration of non-evaluation of answer script Paper-II “ English language and comprehension of Tier-II written examination conducted on 12.04.2015, as bad in law and for a consequential direction to the Staff Selection Commission to evaluate the said paper and declare the result of the applicant. The Staff Selection Commission has issued a notification for Combined Graduate Level Examination 2014, for recruitment to different posts for which graduation from any recognized university is the minimum requisite qualification. The test is conducted in two tiers and thus marks of the candidates at both the tests would be taken into consideration for purpo...
Wasy Shakeel Ansari Vs. The Managing Director, Charminar Bank (The Cha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
Common Order: W.P.No.15371 of 2008 was filed questioning the action of the respondent-Bank in not releasing the collateral security papers even after payment of full and final debt amount as per One Time Settlement Scheme on the demand made by the respondent-Bank, Purani Haveli Branch vide A/c.No.34/2000. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.560 of 2011 questioning the illegal action of the respondent-Bank in issuing sale notice dated 16.12.2010 in E.P.No.2 of 2003 and putting the property relating to A and B Schedule for sale and proposing to conduct auction on 25.01.2011. The case of the petitioner was that he is the proprietor of Al-Ansari Poultry Farm. He availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank, Purani Haveli Branch, for development of poultry farm by mortgaging the property house bearing H.No.12-2-458/3, comprising of ground and first floors situated at Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. In the year 2001 as bird flu was affected, the petitioner could not pay the monthly installm...
G.S.V. Krishna Rao Vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
Common Order: 1. These two criminal petitions are filed by petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2015 of Markapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B, read with 34 I.P.C which is the outcome of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein and the same was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. The 1st accused G.S.V.Krishna Krishna Rao is the Assistant General Manager, and the 2nd accused is the Chief Manager-cum-Authorised Officer, Andhra Bank, Somajiguda branch at the time alleged offence. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, who filed a private complaint on 04.05.2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Markapur in C.F.R.No.3649/2015 for the above said offences alleging that the complainant is doing civil contracts and also owning lands in Markapur town of Prakasam District, that one M.V.B.Nar...
M/s. Hindustan Ispat Private Limited Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, J ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. This petition is filed seeking review of the order passed by the Division bench of this Court in W.P. No.16279 of 2014 dated 16.06.2014. In W.P. No.16729 of 2014, the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, in passing the assessment order dated 06.05.2014 for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 under the A.P. VAT Act, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice; to declare that, under Section 13 of the A.P. VAT Act for the claim of input tax credit, the petitioner should produce only a valid tax invoice issued by the selling dealer as illegal; and to declare that the petitioner was entitled to input tax credit since they had purchased iron and steel from registered VAT dealers who were assessees on the rolls of the Commercial Taxes Department, and were in possession of valid tax invoices. In the order under review, the Division Bench observed that the assessment order was appealable and hence the pet...
Mukesh Kumar and Others Vs. The Debts Recovery Tribunal rep., by its R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. This petition is filed seeking review of the order passed in W.P. No.35413 of 2013 dated 23.06.2014. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.35413 of 2013 seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order passed, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2009. S.A. No.97 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners herein, under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act ?), to set aside the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank herein, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, against the scheduled property as void, illegal and arbitrary; to direct the 2nd respondent-bank to give a valid discharge of the liability over the scheduled property; and to deliver the documents/execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. In its order, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, the Debts Recovery Tribunal observed that the petitione...
Gandreddi Rajarajeswari and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
Common Order: 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are working as Anganwadi Helpers and seeking for appointment as Anganwadi Workers in the form of promotion. The petitioners challenge the recruitment notification issued to fill up the posts of Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages where the petitioners are presently working as Anganwadi Helpers. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. With the consent of learned counsel, the writ petitions are finally disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the requirement for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Helper as well as Anganwadi Worker is that a person seeking such appointment should be a native of the village in which the Anganwadi Centre is located. Insofar as the Anganwadi Helper is concerned, the educational qualification required is VII Class and in case of Anganwadi Worker, a pass in X Class. The petitioners are recruited...
Dr. D.Balachandra Reddy Vs. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secret ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
1. This writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent-Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Hyderabad (respondent No.3) to pay the stipend to the petitioner for M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery) Super Speciality course from 01-8-2014 to 31-7-2017 as per Condition No.G(2) and to further declare that the condition The candidates those who are in service will not be paid stipend as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts that led to filing the present writ petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner completed M.B.B.S. course in the year 2007. He was appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon by the Government and was posted at Primary Health Centre, Nallacheruvu, Ananthapur district in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was selected for the Post Graduate course M.S. (General Surgery) at Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi as in-service candidate. The 2nd respondent relieved him from service and permitted him to prosecute the Post Grad...
B. Sreenivasulu Vs. B. Kusuma Kumari and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order and decree in I.A.No.893 of 2015 in O.S.No.36 of 2010 dated 10.08.2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The petitioner herein is the first defendant and the respondents No.1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The suit filed is for partition of plaint A,B,C,D and E schedule properties into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share to each of three plaintiffs and similar 1/5th share to the defendants No.2 and 3 representing their father's share. The plaint A, B, C, D and E schedule properties are described vividly. 3. The 1st defendant filed separate written statement and defendants No.2 to 4 filed separate written statements respectively, where the suit is under contest. The chief affidavit of 1st plaintiff as PW.1 was filed on 10.2.2015 after serving notice to the defendants and the same was also taken on oath by order ...
Shafiya Begum Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
Common Order : The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions have common grievance viz., that respondent No.2 has issued three separate but identical notices, dated 06-11-2015, directing them to remove the shops constructed by them in Survey No.1964 of Atmakuru Village. The only ground on which the petitioners have questioned the impugned notices is that before issuing them, respondent No.2 has not given them an opportunity to showcause why the shops shall not be removed. Mr.Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that before issuing the impugned notices, survey was done by the Revenue Department, which revealed that the petitioners have constructed the shops over the land belonging to Atmakur Municipality and that Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short the Act'), does not stipulate issue of show cause notice. Section 192 of the Act reads as under: Removal of encroachments: 1. The Commissioner may cau...
Md. Hafeez Ahamed and Another Vs. The Southern Power Distribution Comp ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
1. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that the petitioners possess the qualification of pass in S.S.C and I.T.I in Fitter Trade. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was initially appointed as Shift Operator on 08.05.2003 and the second petitioner was appointed in the year 2002 and they have been working regularly as Junior Linemen. They have been discharging the work of shift duty putting on and off of power supply to various categories, phase village connections and 24 hours supply to Mandal Head Quarters and all other duties to be discharged by the regular Junior Lineman. However, their status has been on contract basis. Recently, the respondent Distribution Company has resorted for recruitment to the post of Junior Plant Attendant. In the said recruitment notification, qualifications prescribed are I.T.I in Electrical Trade. On account of prescription of such qualification, the petitioners are deprived of their entitleme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »