1
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-28-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD563; 2003(1)ALT276
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 106 arising out of IA No. 926 of 2002 in OS No. 38 of 2002, which is pending on the File of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar.2. It appears from the record that the respondents 1 and 2, who were plaintiffs in the suit, had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein and some other respondents herein, which was numbered as OS No. 38 of 2002.3. The parties to the appeal are described as arrayed in the original suit.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA No. 926 of 2002 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the defendants 1 and 106 restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property to the extent of Ac.379-10 guntas situated at Bachepally Village.5. The second plaintiff in her affidavit stated that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to her father late Mohd. Naw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-22-2002
Reported in : 2002(5)ALD345; 2002(5)ALT179
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 5647 of 2002, Sri M. Sudhir Kumar and Smt. B. Sudha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No. 8096 and 8196 of 2002 respectively, Mr. S. Chandra Rao, Mr. C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy and Smt.Bhaskara Lakshimi learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court and the learned Government Pleader for Home.2. All these writ petitions were filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in issuing the impugned order in G.O. Ms.No. 38, Law (LA & J Courts-C) Department dated 8.3.2002 directing the shifting of II Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court from Cuddapah to Proddatur with its staff and other paraphernalia as illegal, void, discriminatory, without power, jurisdiction or authority and contrary to the provisions contained in A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, and consequently to direct the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-25-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT332; 2002CriLJ2464
Bilal Nazki, J.W.P. No. 860 of 1999 1. This Writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code are arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of constitutional limitations and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts on the basis of which this Writ petition has been filed are; the petitioner is a journalist and is Chief editor of some Telugu dailies. He claims that while working as Editor of Telugu daily Vaartha a news item was published titled 'Apuroopa Kala Khandalanu Videsalaku Taralistunna Kalanjali'. This news item carried a report on the alleged sale of certain artifacts by Kalanjali in the city. After publication of this article the petitioner received a notice dated 17-8-96 on behalf of Mr. Ramoji Rao and M/s Margadarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sent a reply in which it was said; 'Kalanjali has been resorting to back door methods on smuggling and that in fact the article only mentioned t...
Tag this Judgment!