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.
Britannia Industries Limited, A Company incorporated under the Compani ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
This Writ Petition is filed Challenging the order dated 10.09.2009 made by the District Collector, Rangareddy District-2nd respondent, in exercise of the powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the Act ?). 2) (a) The brief facts of the case as set out in the affidavit are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of confectionary products like biscuits, cakes, rusk, bread etc. Petitioner has about 70 Contract Manufacturers and packers apart from a large number of distributors, and petitioner has manufacturing facilities throughout the country. The petitioner consumes a large quantity of wheat, sugar and other agricultural products in the process of manufacturing the confectionary products. Petitioner to achieve the quality and to have standard product, procures large quantities of wheat, sugar and other ingredients of its own by following a strict procedure of procurement. To have a better control over the inventory and to ensure better quality products ac...
Kalidindi Venkata Seetha Rama Raju (died) per LRs Vs. The Principal Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Common Order: 1. These two writ petitions relate to the same subject matter and hence, both these writ petitions, which are heard together, are being disposed of by this common order as desired by the learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The writ petitioner (since died) in WP.No.23011 of 2007 is the 5th respondent in WP.No.11847 of 2011 filed by Sri Venkatachala Swami vari Devasthanam, Gudur village represented by a member of the family of the founder. On the death of the writ petitioner in WP.No.23011 of 2007, his legal representatives were brought on record in both the writ petitions. 3. The parties in these writ petitions shall hereinafter be referred to as the writ petitionerand the Templefor convenience and clarity. 4. The facts that lead to the filing of these writ petitions, which are common to a large extent, in brief, are as follows: The Temple had conducted a public auction of the leasehold rights of its land in an extent of Ac.22.65 cents in R.S.No.89 situated at Devarapal...
Usha Kiron Movies Ltd., represented by its Vice President HR, A. Gopal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief/s: .to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.1 herein, the duly constituted Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, to perform his statutory duty viz., to investigate into the complaint made against the Respondent No.2 and take appropriate steps under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the cancellation of the Registration of the said Union, as the certificate of Registration No.A-4406 dated 27.09.2008, having been obtained by fraud and also that it ceases to have adequate number of members to continue as a Registered Union under the Act and issue such further or other Writ ' [Reproduced verbatim] 2. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed counters resisting the writ petition. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Go...
Shaik Mohammed Rawoof Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ?) is filed by the respondent in R.C.No.242 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2012 passed therein, as confirmed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by judgment dated 01.10.2015 passed in R.A.No.188 of 2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in R.C.No.188 of 2012. 3. The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property having purchased the same from its previous owner Mrs.Shameem Sultana by entering into agreement of sale-cum-GPA on 21.11.2008 and the tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent-tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs.350/- and he committed default in paying rent from 21.11.2008. In spite of demand on 28.12.2008 to pay r...
Potluri Bala Vamsi Krishna Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Common Order: 1) These two Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner/ accused in C.C. Nos.175 and 176 of 2012 dated 30.01.2013. The learned III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 66 of the Information Technology Act and Section 379 IPC and after full dressed trial with reference to the evidence on record of PWs.1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os 1 to 4 in C.C. No.175 of 2012 and PWs.1 to 6, Exs.P1 to P7, and MOs.1 and 2 in C.C. No.176 of 2012 convicted the accused for the said offences. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for each offence and both sentences shall run concurrently and by giving set off of the period undergone by the accused from 08.01.2012 to 13.01.2012 and 12.06.2012 to 30.01.2013 in C.C. No.175 of 2012 and from 07.07.2012 to 30.01.2013 in C.C. No.176 of 2012. Impugning the two conviction judgments respectively on 30....
Nawajish Sultan Ali Virani Vs. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. The present writ petition questions the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Tranparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Central Act 30 of 2013') dated 12.06.2015 and the notification as well as notice issued dated 12.06.2015 under Section 15(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013 proposing to acquire premises No.5-1912, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad admeasuring 1371 sq. yards as illegal and violative of Chapter II of the Central Act 30 of 2013 and the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioners states that a dealership agreement was entered into by and between the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) with the petitioner, as a partner, on 23.10.2012 for sale of petroleum and diesel products. Even before the petitioner entered in the said business, the said petroleum outlet is stated to be running from 15.01.1964 and the income generated is stated to be the only livelihood of the petitioner. Petitioner also...
M. Viswanathan Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ. 1. This Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks production of one Carpan Goundar Mani (for short the detenu ?), who, according to the petitioner, has been illegally detained by an order of detention, dated 04.07.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed vide G.O.Rt.No.2433, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 10.08.2015, issued by the 1st respondent, after receiving report of the Advisory Board, dated 29.07.2015. The detention order is under Section 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2 (a) and (g) of The Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/1986) (for short, 1986 Act'). 2. The 2nd respondent ordered detention of the detenu on the grounds that he is involved in six criminal cases registered against him within a span of six months causing gross loss of National wealth, that he is hab...
T. Purushotham Rao and Another Vs. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. The present writ petition questions the notice dated 31.07.2015 issued by the fourth respondent under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Act'). 2. A contention is raised by the petitioners with regard to the applicability of the Act for their land, which is stated to be covered by approved layout with a compound wall with structures and which is not in the nature of water body, road etc. Petitioners also assert ownership and possession for over 100 years and rely upon grant of layout by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board way back in 2008 and also on the no objection certificates issued by the Revenue and Military authorities. Petitioners also contend that merely because the State thinks and treats the aforesaid land as State Government land, merely based upon certain entries in the GLR records and the Defence Estate Officer, cannot empower the State Government to apply the provisions of the Act to claim the land. It is stated that the remedy under the Ac...
V. Nirmala Vs. Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oilseeds Growers, Federation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. Petitioner joined services as Chemist in the year 1988 in Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited (for short, Federation'). Later he was promoted as Quality Control Officer in OPS, Shivarampally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, and while discharging as Quality Control Officer, disciplinary action was initiated against her. On 14.05.2015 she was placed under suspension. Simultaneously, she was served with the charge memo containing allegations of illegal recording of Baller Turbidity Temperature Test (for short, BTT') results of oil being transported in transport vehicle bearing No.AP 11 V 8312. Petitioner filed her explanation to the said charge memo on 25.05.2015. On consideration of the explanation, by order dated 22.07.2015, impugned in this writ petition, petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. 3. This Court by or...
Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad and Others Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
Common Order: Sanjay Kumar, J. By order dated 13.08.2010, a learned Judge directed that C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 be placed before a Bench of two or more Judges for consideration. On 29.09.2010, the Division Bench that dealt with the matter opined that it should be considered by a Full Bench. That is how C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 along with connected C.R.P.Nos.4098 and 5008 of 2010 came to be placed before this Full Bench. The operative portion of the reference order dated 13.08.2010 of the learned Judge reads as under: The conspectus of the precedent law as above would show that some of the learned Judges of this Court have taken a view that if there is long time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature, no purpose would be served by referring the disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert. Some other learned Judges have taken a view that in view of scientific advances, the handwriting expert can compare the admitted and disputed signatures even ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »