Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Boggadi Rama Chandra Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2015
1. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the termination /non renewal of their contract for a further period as Field Assistants under the National Rural Employment Generation Scheme on the ground that they have not achieved the performance targets fixed to them. Since the issue for consideration in all these writ petitions being same, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by common order. 2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri V.Maheshwar Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageshwar Rao, Sri Mohana Rami Reddy, Sri Jagdishwar, Sri K.Srinivas, Sri Ch.Srinivas, Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Sri N.Ashwatha Narayana, Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Sri N Chandrashekar Reddy, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana, Sri Syed Azmatullah, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, appearing for petitioner...
Manoj Kumar (Service No.691785-B) Vs. Union of India, Rep. by its Secr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2015
1. The petitioner was an Airman. By proceedings, dated 25.04.2014, he was discharged from services as per the provisions of the Armed Forces Rules, 1969, and was transferred to Pension Establishment otherwise than at his own request. Aggrieved by the said order and also seeking consequential benefits, the petitioner filed O.A.No.73 of 2015 before the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Chennai. The said case was considered by the Circuit Bench at Hyderabad. It appears from the reading of the order that when the O.A. was taken up for consideration, the Tribunal noticed that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted since the petitioner did not impeach the punishment against him which was the basis for his discharge. At that stage, learned counsel representing the petitioner sought leave of the Tribunal for withdrawing the O.A. with liberty to file a fresh application. Recording the same, the O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inform...
V. Uma Maheswari Vs. The State of Telangana and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for release of the detenu, who has been detained by the Collector “ cum “ District Magistrate, Hyderabad, through his proceedings, dated 09.09.2015. 2. The Collector passed orders on 09.09.2015, exercising the power available to him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (henceforth referred to for brevity as the Act'), for detention of Sri Vasupula Yellam, S/o. V. Yellaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o. H.No.18-1-337/A/26, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad, on the ground that he is a Bootlegger. 3. The Act has been ushered in providing for preventive detention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers so as to prevent them from indulging in dangerous activities prejudicial to the mai...
Dr. Rakurthi Pawan Vs. Bodda Jagadamba and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2015
This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.11.2015 in I.A.No.660/2015 in O.S.No.61/2011 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by and under which, the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the 3rd parties/respondents 2 to 17 to come on record as defendants 2 to 17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.61/2011 for declaration of title and for possession of the schedule property. In the said suit, the court below vide orders dated 12.02.2013 in I.A.No.2674/2011 granted status quo and also vide orders dated 03.03.2012 in I.A.No.2675/2011 appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and note down its physical features. While so, the respondents 2 to 17 filed I.A.No.660/2015 seeking permission to come on record as defendants 2 to 17 in the said suit, stating that they have purchased the schedule pro...
Badavath Suresh and Others Vs. The State of Telangana, Higher Educatio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2015
1. The petitioners, according to them, are working as Ad hoc Lecturers in various departments of the 2nd respondent-Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Hyderabad. They filed the writ petition to declare the proceedings dated 03-7-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent-University as illegal, arbitrary and hit by Articles 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents to absorb them as Assistant Professors, to declare that continuing them on ad hoc basis for years together as unconstitutional and violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and to direct the 2nd respondent-University to pay salaries to them on par with the regularly appointed Assistant Professors. 2. In the Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners submitted as follows: (a) The petitioners are presently working as Ad hoc Lecturers in the 2nd respondent-University in various departments such as Computer Science and Engineering, E...
Mohd. Aasham Pasha and Others Vs. E. Srihar Chary
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-2015
The respondent herein filed an application on 19-04-2012 before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at Miyapur under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 showing the petitioners herein as Opposite Parties, seeking to issue a notice to opposite parties for mediation, reconciliation and settlement of the matter. The main grievance in the application is that the opposite parties are the regular customers of the applicant as they have been purchasing raw material of fiber under credit bills and having running account with the applicant as he has been running the business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Laxmi Fiber Industries. The opposite parties are due of an amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. Even though the opposite parties assured that they will clear total dues by 31-03-2012, they failed to keep up their promise. A statement of the credit account with the applicant dated 31-03-2012 verified and accepted by the opposite parties was ...
The New Osmangunj Extension Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and Ano ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-2015
1. The appellant is the defendant/M/s Navbharat Restaurant, a proprietary concern and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1936 of 1997 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That is the entity, the Cooperative Housing Society in the plaint arrayed as represented by its Secretary by then by name Devata Narayana. 2. The appeal is filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 25.01.2006 in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the plaint schedule premises admeasuring 1400 sq. feet under MCH No.5-2-280 to 283 of New Osman Gunj, Muneer Bagh, Opp. to Gowliguda Telephone Exchange, Hyderabad by evicting the defendant and for arrears of rent of Rs.14,646/-, mesne profits from 01.05.1997 to 31.08.1997 amounting to Rs.24,000/- besides future mesne profits at Rs.6,000/- per month from September, 1997 till taking possession. Three months time is granted by the trial Court to vacate the premises and to pay arrears w...
Kamireddy Sumathi and Another Vs. C. Mallikarjuna Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-2015
Two unfortunate unmarried women filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking to protect their ancestral property. Their attempt is strongly opposed by the auction purchaser, who is the third respondent herein. Their father, who is the second respondent is unrepresented. The decree holder “ first respondent remains silent. The brief facts leading to the present case are that the second respondent executed a promissory note for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the first respondent on 01.03.1998. Though he paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- subsequently, he committed default in paying the balance amount. The first respondent filed O.S.No.190 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, for recovery of an amount of Rs.52,500/- on 12.06.2003. It was decreed for Rs.52,500/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.21,000/- on 13.10.2004. The first respondent filed E.P.No.85 of 2005 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, and the prope...
Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Common Judgment: ((Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.) The order of reference dated 05.08.2015, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by a Division Bench at the request of the learned counsel for the parties having regard to few judgments of the learned single Judges disposing writ petitions, assailing inaction of registering authorities in receiving, registering and delivering the documents presented for registration in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908 (for short Registration Act ?). In those judgments, various directions have been issued by the learned single Judges, which, according to the learned counsel for the parties, are either conflicting or inconsistent. 2. Along with these Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013) several other writ appeals and more than 1200 writ petitions, where similar challenge has been raised, were also listed for hearing before the Division Bench, when the reference ord...
Y. Prabhakara Reddy Vs. K. Pramod Kumar Reddy and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. This civil revision petition is filed against an order, dated 09.10.2015, in I.A.No.387 of 2015 in O.S.No.56 of 2010, on the file of Family Court, Kurnool District, wherein the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.) seeking the Court below to eschew the evidence of D.W.1 since he was examined even before the first defendant was examined. The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- with subsequent interest basing on certain cheques said to have been received by the second respondent on behalf of his son, who is the first defendant. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the second defendant received four cheques from the plaintiff undertaking to pay money to the first respondent. Both the respondents failed to repay the amount due under those cheques, when demanded by him. Hence, the suit for recovery o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »