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.
The Colliery Manager, Morgan €™s Pit, Singareni Collieries ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is preferred against the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.686 of 1995. The Colliery Manager of Singareni Collieries Company is the appellant herein. The first respondent was a workman employed with the said Collieries. While he was working as a Trammer, an industrial accident took place at about 6:00 a.m on 26th July 1987 in an underground mine known as Morgan's pit. A rail tub filled with coal extracted has suddenly fallen off the rails and hit the respondent workman-employee, while he was performing duties. He was very grievously injured resulting in his immediate hospitalization and ultimately, the injury has left a devastating effect on him resulting in his being declared as medically unfit for employment any further in the Collieries. Instead of discharging the employee on such medical unfitness grounds, the Company has preferred to terminate his employment. But,...
V. Vinay Vidyadhar and Others Vs. Alok Rawath, Secretary, Government o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This Contempt case is instituted by the petitioners in W.P.No.24452 of 2010 complaining in a sense of willful and intentional violation of orders passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition on 30.11.2010. One Sri V.Sambasiva Rao and 9others, who were working as Assistant Chemists, Assistant Hydrogeologists etcetera approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short henceforth referred to as C.A.T ?) and instituted O.A.No.1032 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the exclusion of the posts of Assistant Chemists and Assistant Hydrogeologists in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 (pre-revised pay scale of Rs.650-1200) from the purview of Central Ground Water Board (Group-A posts) Recruitment Rules 1987, which were repealed by the Central Ground Water Board (Group-A posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 as illegal. They also sought for a consequential direction for inclusion of the posts of Assistant Chemists and Assistant Hydrogeologists wit...
Chinni Appa Rao and Others Vs. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
The petitioners are A.1 to A.3 of P.R.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, which is out come of protest application of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, by name K.Srinivasa Rao, and the accused persons A.1-Chinni Apparao, his wife Smt.Chinna Appala Narsamma-A.3 and their son Chinni Appa Rao-A.2, are neighbours to the de facto complainant. Originally, Crime No.28 of 2011 of Munagapaka Police Station, Visakahpatnam District, was registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act') and Sections 342, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC on the report of the de facto complainant dated 28.03.2011 against five accused persons including the three quash petitioners supra as A.1 to A.3 and one Maddala Lakshmana as A.4 and Maddala Maheswara Rao as A.5 of T.Sirsapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal. The caste of A...
Kummari Lakshmaiah (Angadi) and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the CrPC') by the Petitioners/Accused in Cr.No.201 of 2014 on the file of the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station,Nandyal, Kurnool district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302,326,364 and 306 IPC which is outcome of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent referred by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, for investigation. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record with reference to the legal position. 3. The contents of the private complaint dated 10.10.2014 filed by the 2nd respondent-complainant against the 5 accused persons are that, the complainant's younger brother Srinivasulu(deceased) and one Adi Parvata G.P., D/o Murari loved each other and they left the Kadarabadara village of Sirvel Mandal to Pulivendula to house of Subhash (another brother of complainant-a driver) and on information of it from Subhash (LW.4) by complainant a...
Gottumukkala Sundara Narasaraju and Others Vs. Pinnamaraju Venkata Nar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Common Judgment: The second appeal in SA.No.1140 of 2003 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( ˜the Code', for brevity) by the unsuccessful defendants 2 and 4 is directed against the decree and judgment dated 11.09.2003 in AS.No.204 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 1.1 By the impugned decree and judgment, the Court below had dismissed the first appeal of the defendants 2 and 4 and also the cross objections of the plaintiffs. 1.2 Therefore, feeling aggrieved of the dismissal of their cross objections and for not awarding future mesne profits, the plaintiffs had brought the other second appeal SA.No.1305 of 2003. 1.3 The learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the said first appeal of the defendants 2 and 4 and the cross objections of the plaintiffs had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 27.08.2001 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yelamachili of Visakhapatnam District passed in OS.No.32...
Velama Aruna Vs. Gadde Chakrapani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
This civil revision petition arises out of order dt.01.10.2015 in O.S. No.298 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the only point arises for consideration in this case is whether the suit agreement of sale in respect of house property is liable for stamp duty under Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the Act'), or Clause (B) of the said Article. The lower Court has taken the view, and in my view rightly, that as the sale pertains to a house, Article 6(A) is attracted. However, Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Clause (B) of Article 6 is attracted to the present case. Clauses (A) and (B) of Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Act, read as under: Description of InstrumentProper stamp duty1 to 5. 6. AGRREMENT or MEMORANDUM OF AN AGREEMENT not otherwise provided for: A) Where the value -- (i) does not exceed Rs.5,000/-(ii) exceeds Rs.5,000/-but does not e...
M. Srividya Chowdary and Another Vs. M. Sreenivasulu and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Common Order: These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of the common cause of action. C.R.P.No.4580 of 2014 is filed against the order in E.A.No.260 of 2014 in E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2005 by the petitioners in E.A.No.260 of 2014 seeking to set aside the sale held on 21.08.2009 in favour of the first respondent “ decree holder. C.R.P.No.871 of 2015 is filed by the second judgment debtor against the order in E.A.No.402 of 2014 filed by him Order 34 Rule 5 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to deposit the entire Execution Petition amount. The parties as arrayed in C.R.P.No.871 of 2015 are taken into consideration for the narration of facts in disposing of these cases. The petitioner's father purchased Plot No.10 under registered sale deed dated 06.08.1983 and after his death, the petitioner and the third judgment debtor succeeded to the said property. His mother also purchased another plot bearing No.11 under registered sale...
M/s. Felguera Gruas India Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Dir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Common Judgment:(R. Subhash Reddy, J.) 1. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 27.10.2015, passed by the 24th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Arbitration O.P.No.2123 of 2015. As parties in these appeals are common and also common issue arises for consideration, all these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant is a Company engaged in the business of supply and erection of bulk handling equipments and caters to the energy and industrial sectors including ports, power plants, thermal plants etc. and is specialized in the management of such projects. The respondent is also a Company engaged in the business of constructing, erecting, building, paving, excavating, repairing, renovating etc. works in connection with the projects such as railways, tramways, docks, ports etc. The respondent Company is awar...
G. Ksheerasagaram Vs. The Govt of A.P., reptd. by its Principal Secret ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Common Order: Writ Petition No.20749 of 2014 is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings in D.Dis.No.2041/2002/R3, dated 28.12.2002, of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary and respondent No.4 therein filed Writ Petition No.31782 of 2015 for a Mandamus to declare the action of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, in returning the proposals for construction of first floor by it at Door No.15-4-3, Bapuji Nagar, Kovvur, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.20749 of 2014. Respondent No.4 has acquired a plot adjacent to the residential building of the petitioner. It has obtained permission from respondent No.2 for construction of a building for running a commercial bank. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.3301 of 2003 for a Mandamus to declare the grant of permission by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 to construct a commercial building in a residential area ...
Sree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Bank Ltd., rep. by Gattu Murali Kumar Vs. The ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Common Order: Since the parties and the issues involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. In all these writ petitions the petitioner is a Bank, which is operating under A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Act, 1995 (in short the APMACS Act ?) and the respondents 3 and 4 are the borrowers, who had suffered an order with respect to their borrowings. The brief facts as set out in the affidavit are the petitioner-Bank approached the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal Camp Court at Hyderabad (in short the Tribunal) by filing O.P.Nos.957; 959; 960; 961 of 2001 and 26 of 2002 for recovery of amounts lent to 3rd and 4th respondents and they resulted in Compromise Award dated 19.07.2006; and when the decree is made over by the Tribunal to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District for execution, basing on the same, the Sale Officer / Assistant Registrar (Credit), Adoni, Kurnool District issued notices of atta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »