Andhra Pradesh Court January 2016 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.
M. Venkateswarlu Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Common Order: It is apropos to begin this judgment by noting Mr. Henry Viscards Jr., American activist who fought for the rights of disabled formula propounded for belief for the disabled: ''I seek opportunity, not security. I will not trade my dignity for a handout. It is my heritage to think and act for myself.'' 1. It is apposite to note the observations of Honble Justice S.B. Sinha in Justice J.K. Mathur Memorial Lecturer (Published in (2005 ) 3 SCC J-1): The mindset of people towards PWDs which needs to be changed . In the words of Henry Viscards Jr.,. there are no disabled people. There is nothing which can substitute for human rights, no honours, no fame, no pension, no subsidy, can replace a wish to work with dignity in free and open competition with all. (emphasis supplied). 2. In his conclusive remarks, Justice Sinha observed, Legal predications, judicial pronouncements and constitutional preferences only elucidate the imperative, for laws alone cannot guarantee integration. ...
A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Common Judgment: C.C.C.A.No.62 of 2013: 1. The appeal is maintained by the then A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation(for short, Corporation') represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad, the 1st defendant, among three defendants including the State of A.P. represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. and State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool branch represented by its Manager, impugning the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated dt.14.09.2009 in O.S.No.2172 of 2006 filed by M/s Maruthi Road lines rep. by its Proprietor Y.Venkateshwarlu, for recovery of Rs.5,40,000/- with future interest and costs, for decreeing by the trial Court the suit against three defendants {(the Civil Supplies Corporation(the appellant herein) and the State Government( the then A.P.) and against the 3rd defendant (State Bank of Hyderabad also)} for Rs.3,65,715/-( which includes of Rs.1,30,000/- the claim of the plaintiff on bills, increase of 30% transport rate from 15.10.1990 to ...
Rachamalla Sridhar Murali Krishna Vs. The State of A.P., reptd. by its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the petitioner, who is a member from the founder family, for appointment as trustee to respondent No.5-temple as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Mr. V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments (Andhra Pradesh) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Ambati Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments (Andhra Pradesh), appearing for respondent No.5. The facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District, by a detailed order, dated 05.10.2002, in Revision Petition No.10 of 2002, while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, appointing a third party as trustee to respondent No.5-temple ignoring the claim of the petitioner's father, declared the latter as the member from the founder family of resp...
G. Haribabu Vs. Lagula Krishnaiah Goud and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Common Order: Both these miscellaneous petitions have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 529 and 516 days in filing the accompanying civil revision petitions, challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.17 of 2014 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 and the order passed in I.A.No.18 of 2014 in O.S.No.257 of 2007, respectively. The petitioner in both these miscellaneous petitions is the same individual, while the respondents are also common in the sense that in C.R.P(SR)No.26676 of 2015 Smt. Lagula Parvatamma W/o late Nagaiah Goud, the first respondent is the plaintiff, while in C.R.P.(SR) No.26702 of 2015, Sri Lagula Krishnaiah Goud S/o late Nagaiah Goud is the first respondent plaintiff in the suit. Since the same question falls for consideration, both these petitions are heard together. I.A.No.17 of 2014 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 and I.A.No.18 of 2014 in O.S.No.257 of 2007 are both petitions which are moved in-turn seeking condonation of delay of 1169 days in filing applications to set-aside the e...
P. Trivikrama Prasad Vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its Assistant Inspe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. The petitioner is 1st accused of the private complaint in C.C.NO.367 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada that is maintained by Assistant Inspector of Factories, Kakinada-I Circle, Kakinada against the petitioner as Managing Director and Occupier of Nava Bharat Ventures Limited (Sugar Division) and A2 managed the entity supra. 2. The private complaint was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 32(a) read with Section 41 and Rule 61-E of the Factories Act, with the averments that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Kakinada and Inspector of Factories, Kakinada, inspected the premises of Nava Bharat Ventures Limited (Sugar Division), Samarlakota Village and Mandalam, East Godavari District, which is a factory within the meaning of Section 2m(i) of the Factories Act, 1948, on 28.01.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., found that accused persons have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules supra viz., failed to provide D-ri...
S. Bala Krishna Vs. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecut ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the CrPC') by the Petitioner/accused to quash the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2015 in Cr.No.154 of 2011 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, who took cognizance of protest petition filed by the defacto-complainant for the offences u/sec.3(1)(X) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned Public Prosecutor representing State-1st respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-defacto-complainant and perused the material on record. 3. The factual matrix is that the 2nd respondent by name V.Jai Prakash is member of the 8th ward of cantonment area. The petitioner/accused is present Defence Estates Officer, Kolkota Circle, Kolkota, West Bengal and earlier worked as Chief Executive Officer of the Secunderabad cantonment member. The 2nd respondent presented a police report dated 25.08.2011, to ...
J. Sesha Ratna Kumar (Crl.P.No.2715 of 2013) and Another Vs. State of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Common Order: The petitioner-Smt.J.Sesha Ratna Kumari in Crl.P.No.2715 of 2013 is the sole accused in C.C.No.307 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 406 IPC, which is an out come of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-P.Venkatesham dated 23.06.2011. The said private complaint was referred to Ramachandrapuram Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate for investigation, from which Crime No.206 of 2011 was registered and after investigation police filed the final report. After taking cognizance for the offences supra, the learned Magistrate issued summons and impugning the same, Crl.P.No.2715 of 2013 is filed. 1(a). The petitioner-Smt.A.Suchitra in Crl.P.No.2716 of 2013 is the sole accused in C.C.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy,...
APSRTC rep. by its Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. N.V. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Common Order: The order of reinstatement into service with 50% of the back wages is sought to be challenged in these two writ petitions by the Employee and Employer. Since both the writ petitions are connected and arise out of the order in I.D.No.132 of 2005 the same are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in I.D. The petitioner joined as a Conductor in the Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation ?) on 11.11.1986 through due process of selection and his services were regularized with effect from 19.07.1987. On 05.06.2002, while the petitioner was conducting the bus, on route No.17, between Kushaiguda and Secunderabad, the checking officials of the Corporation checked the bus after it moved a furlong from stage No.7. On the ground that the petitioner indulged in misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities, a charge memo was prepared by the checking officials on the spot and was served...
V.V. Govindarajulu @ Kondababu Vs. Sakalabhaktula Vaikunta Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, in I.A.No.100 of 2009 in O.S.No.17 of 1990. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale based on a receipt dated 13.12.1979. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to sell a piece of land, took a sum of Rs.2,000/- as advance and executed the receipt dated 13.12.1979. Since the original of the receipt dated 13.12.1979 was misplaced, it was not filed along with the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C seeking permission to file the photocopy of the receipt dated 13.12.1979 and to mark it as an exhibit. The defendant opposed the application raising several contentions, particularly, inadmissibility of the photocopy of the receipt. The Court below, by order dated 13.06.2011, allowed the application. Aggr...
T. Siddartha Rao Vs. Lavanya Lewis and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
The petitioner is sole accused of Crime No.210 of 2012 of Kharkana Police Station, Secunderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC on the report of the first respondent defacto complainant. He sought for quashing of proceedings of the said crime pending. The averments of the report of the defacto complainant dated 14.12.2012 in nutshell are that the accused is no other than the brother of d e f a c t o complainant-Mrs.Lavanya Lewis represented by GPA holder Pretham Powaku of Secunderabad. That she is working in a Multinational Company in Texas and in order to support her brother and from his interest to establish a company without any financial investment, she helped him by investing the entire amount which she was remitting to Bank accounts from her account and company account of MFK LLC, Chase Bank, account No.00000746517416 from USA, but, however he has been mentally harassing her for money and threatening to stop the process of US work and also...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »