Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Bichenapally Sumahitha Vs. The Government of Telangana, Department of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
The writ petitioner is a student who wanted to pursue MBBS Course. She secured 97.66% of marks in the relevant subjects and attended for EAMCET-2014 examination. She secured 4178th rank. Since the chances of securing admission through counseling were little, she wanter to apply for admission under C1 category. The admissions to MBBS are governed by the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.9, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 25.08.2014, as per which, 60% of the seats are filled under convener quota whereas 40% of the seats are filled under category C. In respect of C category seats, 25% are earmarked for management quota under C1, and 15% are earmarked for NRI quota. The fee payable for management quota is different from NRI quota. The fourth respondent college issued a notification on 27.08.2014 inviting applications for filling up of the seats under management quota. The petitioner applied on 29.08.2014. The fourth respondent directed the petitioner to attend for an i...
Narayan Reddy (died) per LRs Vs. Khaja Gulam Mustafa (died) per LRs
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
1. The unsuccessful sole plaintiff had brought this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the decree and judgment dated 29.08.1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed in AS.No.122 of 1982. The learned Additional District Judge while allowing the said first appeal had set aside the decree and judgment dated 31.07.1982 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East and North passed in OS.No.52 of 1966 and dismissed the said suit. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. I have perused the material record including the brief note submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. 3. At the time of the admission of this appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law mentioned in grounds nos.4 and 5 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the said substantial questions of law read as follows: Whether in the abse...
Kavitha Rajakoti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.IV, Nellore and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. This writ petition questions the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting stay of collection of tax, pending appeal before the 4th respondent, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Heard Mr. S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The exemption claimed by the petitioner for the amount deposited under the Capital Gains Account Scheme, under Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, came to be rejectedby the 1st respondent/Assessing Officer. Further, the petitioner's claim for exemption on the amount paid after filing of the return also came to be rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent and the same is pending. During pendency of appeal, the petitioner filed an application before the Assessing Officer/1st respondent seeking stay of the impugned demand, but the same came to be rejected. Incidentally, it is the same Assessing Officer w...
Kollapudi Gangadhar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Publi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 (for short, the Act'). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and the 1st respondent-State represented by the Public Prosecutor, before admission and before ordering any notice to the 2nd respondent. 3. Perused the material on record including the order of this Court (another Bench) in dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner dated 16.02.2015 in Crl.P.No.261 of 2015, wherein he was given liberty to surrender before the learned Magistrate and move for regular bail. 4. The above crime is registered on the report of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nellore, being the competent authority, und...
V. Muthuvelu Vs. State of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to direct the respondents to produce Sri Bathini Tirumala S/o.V.Muthuvelu, presently detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, before this Court and to set him at liberty forthwith by ordering his release by declaring the order of detention dated 20.12.2014, passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor, in Roc.No.C2/7269/2014, as confirmed in G.O.Rt.No.543, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 23.02.2015, issued by the 1st respondent-State, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In exercise of powers under Section 3(1) and (2) read with Section 2(g) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor has issued the i...
T. Vinil Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by Inspector of Police and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A.4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Krunool District, where the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313, 323 and 506 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is outcome of the final report of Nandyal II Town Police Station in Crime No.62 of 2015 based on the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 and also the 1st respondent represented by the Public Prosecutor, before admission and before issuing notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record, the material falls short of this Court even to admit the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings but for giving liberty to the petitioner to file an applicati...
Dr. Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera and Another Vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Common Order: These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as these two writ petitions involve common point of law. The petitioners are graduates in medicine and students of post graduation who are pursuing the course of MD General Medicine in the third respondent college. The said course is of three years duration. The first respondent University conducted the examination for P.G Degree theory and practical on 21.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 respectively. The results of the examinations were declared on 23.06.2015 and the petitioners were stated to have secured the following marks. Sl. No.Name of the CandidateMarks obtained (Theory)Marks obtained (Practical)1Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera (Petitioner in WP. No.22858/2015)250/400127/3002Kranthi Kumar (Petitioner in WP. No.23391/2015)224/400127/300 The required minimum marks for theory examination is 200 whereas for p...
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary and Others Vs. Shaik Abdul Fazul ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. The Union of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati are the petitioners herein, who sought for a Certiorari for correcting the exercise carried out by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in OA/020/00948/2014 on 17.04.2015. The first respondent herein filed the above said Original Application challenging initially, the reluctance of the petitioners herein in allowing him to resume his duties on 07.08.2014 and subsequently, passing an order on 22.08.2014 deeming the first respondent to have been placed under suspension as he was detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. Now, the Tribunal has passed an order quashing the proceedings dated 08.08.2014 and those followed on 22.08.2014 and 25.09.2014. The petitioners herein are also directed to reinstate the first respondent into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. The only ...
Kore Gattaiah and Others Vs. Kore Venkataiah and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner “plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.7.2015 passed in I.A. No.147 of 2015 in O.S. No.281 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial. 2. The parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3. The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, and mandatory injunction against respondent No.4-defendant No.4 (Tahsildar, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District) to alter necessary entries in the revenue records. After completion of trial and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial court reserved the matter for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. No.147 of 2015 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to reopen the ...
R.M. Ramesh Babu and Others Vs. Union of India, Represented by its Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Common Judgment: These two Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law and hence they are being heard and disposed of together. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.8156 of 2010. The Writ Petitions have been filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying salaries of the petitioners from 1-5-2009 to 31-3-2010 as illegal. The petitioners averred that in terms of the policy of the Central Government Krishi Vigyan Kendras were established in every District of the States, including the State of Andhra Pradesh; that they are the employees of respondent No.5-Prof.N.G. Ranga Krishi Vigyan Kendra (for short KVK ?)-Vinayashramam, a Farm Science Centre, working in various capacities; that respondent No.1-Union of India, provides financial aid to respondent No.3 and the KVK through respondent No.2 and hence the KVK assumes the character of Statewithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of Indi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »