Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
A.P. Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi, Rep. by Jr. Secretary, Gandhi Gyan Mandir V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
The issue in the present writ petition arises under A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations. In the present writ petition challenge is to the order of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.43 Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 16-05-2006. By virtue of the said order, the 1st respondent “ State Government confirmed the orders passed by the District Collector/Agent to Government, Khammam and the Spl. Deputy Collector. The subject matter of the writ petition is the land admeasuring 123.48 Hectors situated in Sy.No.287/18 of Chirramalla village, Pinapaka mandal, Khammam District. On the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Pinapaka Mandal the Special Deputy Collector pressed into service the provisions of A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations (hereinafter called, Regulations') and passed an order, dated 30-09-1993 in case No.83/93/PNK, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka to take over the possession of the subject land on the ...
V. Ajay Kumar Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
1. Petitioners are employees of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short, SCCL ?). During the course of service petitioners obtained B.Tech., Degrees from the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University of Hyderabad (JNTUH) through Correspondence-cum “Contact mode. Petitioners intend to compete to the post of Management Trainee (EandM) E2 Cadre. On the ground that the degree obtained by them is not through regular mode, their candidature is not considered. Hence, this writ petition. Petitioners pray to declare that the qualifications possessed by them are valid, that they are eligible to participate in the recruitment and to allow them to take examination for the post of Management Trainee (EandM). 2. By order dated 26.06.2015, this Court directed to issue hall tickets to petitioners to write the recruitment examination. However, their papers were directed not to be evaluated. Petitioners were accordingly permitted to write written examination. Praying to vacate the interim ...
M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Limited Vs. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The relief sought for by the writ petitioner in this writ petition is to declare that the levy and the collection of the sewerage cess by the respondents in the monthly bill of the petitioner's unit is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 ( ˜the Act', for brevity). 2.I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-HMWS and SB. I have perused the material record. 3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that since the first respondent had not laid any sewerage line to the premises of the petitioner's unit and as the petitioner's premises is not directly connected to any sewerage system of the first respondent, the respondents are not entitled to collect the sewerage cess from the petitioner; the petitioner is carrying the effluents from its unit by tankers to Patancheru Enviro-Tech Limited ...
M.R. Manikyam Vs. The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. This writ petition is filed questioning the award, dated 31.10.2008, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.181 of 2005. 2. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act'), confirming the order of his removal by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the departmental appellate authority. 3. The case, in brief, is that while the petitioner, who was working as Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at H.C.U.Deport, was conducting a bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 1460 on 27.09.2004, on the route Lingampally to Janwada, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.11/12 i.e., Janwada Cross Roads and noticed that the petitioner, though issued tickets to a batch of 10 passengers, failed to punch the same at stage No.11, and that he also failed to close the S.R for stage No.11 even after crossing the said stage. ...
M/s. Srinivasa Builders, Rep. by its Managing Director V. Nagi Reddy V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in OS No.94 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of 30 plots in an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., in the layout plan in Survey Nos.13, 14 and 15, situated at Kalwakurthy town. 2. The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The fifth defendant filed a separate written statement. 3. During the course of evidence, Exs.A1 and A2 we re marked by PW.1 apart from other Exs.A3 to A28 on 15.10.2014. Ex.A1 was the agreement of sale dated 19.05.1999 and Ex.A2 was the agreement of sale dated 25.06.1999. 4. The defendants in the suit filed IA No.27 of 2015 in the said suit to de-exhibit the said Exs.A1 and A2 and collect proper stamp duty and penalty stating that in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 it was specifically stated that the said two agreements were not properly stamped as...
Elchuru Gram Panchayat Vs. Standard Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprieto ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
Common Order: Since the challenge in these two revisions is to the same order this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present revisions by way of this common order. Grampanchayat, Eluchuru, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District is the petitioner in both these revisions. These revisions are directed against the order, dated 06-10-2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District in E.P.No.60 of 2015 in O.S.No.23 of 2001. The facts and circumstances, in nutshell, leading to filing of the present C.R.Ps. are as infra: First respondent instituted O.S.No.23 of 2011 against the petitioner-Gram Panchayat on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District and the learned Judge decreed the said suit on 18-03-2011. Seeking enforcement of the said decree, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed E.P.No.60 of 2015 by way of attachment of amount kept in the Treasury Office, Martur belonging to the judgment debtor-Gram Panchayat. The p...
M/s. Tuunuguntla Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner T.J. Prasad Vs. Maje ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. The revision has arisen out of rent controller-appellate authority's conformation order of rent controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default. The revision petitioner is thus the unsuccessful tenant as respondent in RCC No.46 of 2006. 2. It is the second round of litigation, after the earlier civil suit filed after quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, TP Act') was ended in dismissal mainly on the point of jurisdiction holding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant not covered by the TP Act but governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, Rent Control Act'). 3. It was therefrom under Section 10 of the Rent Control Act was filed. No doubt from perusal of the prayer in the rent control case it did not specifically state as to for bonafide requirement or from willful default the eviction was sought, however reading of the eviction petition...
Syed Yousuf Ali Vs. Mohd. Yousuf and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. The 4th defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 11.09.2015 over-rulling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant about admissibility of possessory agreement or sale, dated 26.06.2012 marked as Ex.A.1. 2. The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of marking possessory agreement of sale as Ex.A.1 objection could not be raised as it was marked in the affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC in lieu of examination in chief and learned counsel was sick on that day and therefore, questioning the admissibility of the possessory agreement of sale, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, filed memo bri...
M. Sitaram Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. This writ petition is filed by the employee working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad Depot (for short, respondent-Corporation') to quash the award dated 16.01.1998 passed in I.D. No.131 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Labour Court), published on 12.02.1998 by issuing writ of certiorari directing the respondent-Corporation to release the increments with back wages. 2. The petitioner joined in service as driver in the year 1987, discharged his duties, but removed from service by the respondent-Corporation by order dated 31.08.1995 on the ground of misconduct. Aggrieved by the removal order dated 31.08.1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which ended in rejection, confirming the order of the respondent-Corporation and, thereupon, raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No.131 of 1996. But the Labour Court converted the punishment of removal into stoppage of five increments with cumulative effec...
M/s. Transstroy (India) Limited Vs. The State of Telangana, Department ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. Acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Hyderabad Metro Rail is questioned by the petitioner by challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act of 1894') vide notification No.C/2341/2013 dated 30.12.2013 as well as draft declaration under Section 6 dated 06.01.2015 and the consequential award dated 31.03.2015. Petitioner also sought an alternate relief to direct the third respondent to acquire the property of the petitioner bearing premises No.8-2-293/82/A/61/1 in Plot Nos.60 and 61 of Jubilee Hills admeasuring 2099.97 sq. yards without built up area. 2. Petitioner states in the affidavit that it has purchased the commercial complex comprising of cellar, ground and four upper floors at the aforesaid premises with a total built up area of more than 1,00,000 sq. feet. Petitioner states that at the time of purchase, during due diligence, it was noticed that there was a proposal for 60 feet road widening on the southern side and...