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.
Amit Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Telangana rep.by Public Prose ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1. The petitioners, who are A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.150 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, Karimnagar District, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said case. 2. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from the police final report, which is outcome of the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant none other than the wife of A-1 vide Cr.No.1 of 2014 dated 25-03-2015. 3. The brief facts of the case from the police report as well as the investigation material in nut-shell is that the marriage of the petitioner/A-1 was performed on 22-06-2004 in Charan Paduka Kutir, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur as per marriage invitation at page 12 and 13 of the petition and in Hindi and English translation and de facto complainant presented the report on 04-01-2014 and the crime was registered on 25-03-2014 for the offences punisha...
DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Rep. b ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1. This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned letter of the second respondent port trust dated 18.04.2015 whereunder the petitioner's contract for Development of West Quay-North (WQ-7 and WQ-8) berth in the inner Harbour of Visakhapatnam Port Trustwas terminated under relevant clause of the terms of the contract between the petitioner and the second respondent. The impugned letter, inter alia, alleges that petitioner failed to furnish balance 5% of performance bank guarantee amounting to Rs.9,76,50,000/- as per clause 106 and as per memorandum (general descript) the petitioner failed to furnish balance 5% towards performance security. Another ground, which is mentioned, is that the petitioner failed to complete the contract within the time stipulated and in spite of notices and opportunity provided, the second respondent is forced to terminate the contract at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner. 2. This writ petition was filed on 30.06.2015 and came up for admission...
Pattipati Vijayalakhsmi and Another Vs. Kotah Laxmi Tulasi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1) The Criminal Petition is filed by Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.185 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Madhira, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 448, 323, 294 (b) r/w 34 IPC, which is outcome of report of 1st respondent ”de facto complainant in Crime No.13 of 2013 of Madhira Town Police Station, Khammam District. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 3 and also 2nd respondent ”State represented by learned public prosecutor, before admission and before issuing notice to the 1st respondent-de facto complainant and perused the material on record. 3) As the facts falls short for this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.185 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, Khammam District, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to petitioners to...
Angalakurthy Venkata Narayanamma and Others Vs. Molakapalli Lakshmamma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1. The defendants in Original Suit No.108 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole (for short, the 'trial Court') preferred this Appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 06.03.1996, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff, for partition of the schedule property into 2 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff, for rendition of true and correct accounts and grant mesne profits, was decreed. 2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.108 of 1988, before the trial Court, will be adopted throughout this judgment. 3. During pendency of the Appeal, 2nd defendant-1st appellant and 1st defendant-2nd appellant herein died and, accordingly, A.S.M.P. No.8733 of 1999 filed to bring on record appellants 2, who is already on record, and appellants 3 and 4 as legal heirs of 1st appellant and respondents 4 to 6 as legal heirs of 2nd appellant is ordered on 02.07.2012; plaintiff-sole respondent herein died and, accordi...
Coromandel Mining and Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
Common Judgment: (Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent of learned counsel heard forthwith. 2. Principally, two prayers have been made in these petitions, first, to declare that Sections 8, 10, 11 and 13 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short the Amendment Act') notified in the extraordinary gazette dated 27.03.2015 and brought into effect on 12.01.2015, are unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 39, 300(A) and 301 of the Constitution of India, and second, a direction to the respondents to complete processing of their applications for prospecting licences made in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the Principal Act') as available prior to the date of the Amendment Act came into effect. 3. The petitioners in these petitions had applied for prospecting licence-cum-mining lease under ...
Syed Tippu Sultan and Others Vs. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2015
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came to be filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2014, dated 24.04.2015. Hence the same is posted under the caption for being mentioned'. The facts which lead to filing of the present petition are as under: By an order dated 24.04.2015, this Court, while disposing of Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015 modified the order of confiscation from 16% to 8%. It was a case where the petitioners herein were owners of a wholesale kirana shop, which was being run in the name and style of M/s.S.S.Stores, Turakabadi Veedhi, Narsipatnam. When the authorities inspected the shop, they found certain variations in the ground stock with the entries made in the Register. Hence the entire stock was seized and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated. After calling for an explanation and after conducting enquiry, the District Collector rej...
Sakeena Begum and Others Vs. Mir Hyder Ali Khan and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2015
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.17.10.2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2014 in O.S.No.87 of 2004 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge(RTC), Nandyal. 2. Petitioners herein are defendants in the above suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of his right in the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the 1st petitioner from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. Pending suit, 1st petitioner died on 27.08.2013. The 1st respondent thereafter filed I.A.No.3 of 2014 to condone the delay of 97 days in seeking to set aside the abatement and in filing the L.R. application alleging that the 1st respondent came to know about the death of the 1st petitioner only on 09.03.2014; therefore he could not file the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased-1st petitioner earlier; and that the counsel for...
M. Shiva Shankar and Another Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Public ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2015
1) The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in C.C. No.63 of 2015 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District which is the outcome of Crime no.332 of 2014, dated 26.04.2014 registered for the offence punishable under Section 181, 171-E I.P.C. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor before admission and perused the entire material on record including the expression of this Court in Kesineni Srinivasa Rao V. State of A.P. (2015(2) ALT (Crl.) 1 (A.P)). 3) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners from the factual matrix from the crime registered by the police that the offences are non-cognizable and the police without even permission of the Magistrate as contemplated by Section 155(2) Cr.P.C taken cognizance and the cognizance taken per se unsustainable without going into the merits, cognizance taken even there is no ...
M/s. Sai Poultry and Feed Mixing Plant, rep. by its Sole Proprietor N. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2015
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside award, dated 23-12-2010, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar. The petitioner has obtained loan from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,24,000/- in the year 2006 for starting the poultry business. As the petitioner, allegedly, failed to repay a part of the loan amount, respondent Nos.1 and 2 started demanding payment. The petitioner has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar, for settlement of the dispute. After inviting counter-affidavit, the Permanent Lok Adalat has suggested to the petitioner to pay Rs.4 lakhs in one lumpsum and respondent Nos.1 and 2 to waive the balance amount. After the case was adjourned by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a request to receive a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- as full and final settlement of the loan amount. While declining the said request, respondent No.1 has resolved vide its minutes, dat...
Mahadev Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Lokesh Kumar Agarwal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2015
Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. In these three writ petitions common questions of fact and law are involved, hence they are taken up for hearing together. Even though these writ petitions came up for admission, at the request of both parties, they are being disposed of. 2. The writ petitions are filed challenging the communication dated 06.07.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Customs which reads as under: As per revised instructions all bills of entry for importing goods at concessional rate of duty under FTA Notifications viz., 46/2011 cuz. Dated 01.06.2011 etc., needs to be assessed provisionally for purpose of verification of documents. Hence you are advised to produce bond along with full purpose of verification of documents. Hence you are advised to produce bond along with full financial guarantee to cover the differential duty. ? 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.21399 of 2015 are discussed hereunder. 4. The averments in W.P.No.21399 of 2015 are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »