Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (A. Shankar Narayana, J.) 1. Challenging the common order and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 in I.A. Nos.859, 860 and 888 of 2014, the respondent in L.G.C. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, Special Court') filed these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I.A. No.859 of 2014 was filed seeking amendment of the counter filed in the aforesaid L.G.C.; I.A. No.860 of 2014 was filed for granting of leave to file document; and I.A. No.888 of 2014 was filed for recalling R.W.1 for marking the said document. The Special Court, by the aforesaid common order, dismissed all the three petitions. Hence, the instant writ petitions seeking the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and quash the said order and prohibit the Special Court from proceeding with any further enquiry in the aforesaid L.G.C. 3. A brief narration of the proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DILIP B.BHOSALE, and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU, THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT,THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA AND THE HONBLE Mrs. JUSTICE ANIS C.M.A.No.3092 OF1998and batch 03-07-2015 R.C.C. (Sales) Private Limited & another Appellants E.S.I. Corporation & others Respondents Counsel for Appellants :Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondents:Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy ?. Cases referred :1. AIR1978AP18(FB) 2) 1980-II L.L.J.474 3) (1978) 4 SCC2574) (2006) 2 SCC3815) AIR1959SC6896) AIR1925PC837) AIR1971SC22138) AIR SC13009) (1977) 2 SCC42410) (2006) 11 SCC234511) AIR1974SC208912) (1991) 3 SCC6713) (1974) 2 SCC47214) (1974) 1 SCC24215) (2010) 12 SCC45816) 1993 Supp (4) SCC10017) 1980 LabIC1078THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DILIP B.BHOSALE, THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU, THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT,THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA AND THE HONBLE Mrs. JUSTICE ANIS +C.M.A. No.3092 OF1998nd batch COMMON JUDGMENT:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21124 of 2014 16-10-2014 Sri P.Trivikrama Prasad, s/o.late P.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 62 years, r/o.Plot No.27, Navodaya Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and two others Petitioners Enforcement Directorate, rep.by its Joint director, Office of the Joint Director, Hyderabad Zonal Office, 3rd Floor, Shakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and two others.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, Senior Counsel for Sri P.Vikram Counsel for the Respondents:1. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate for Respondents 1 and 2. 2) Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.3 : : ?. Cases referred:1. (1973) 3 SCC2652. (1972) 3 SCC2343. (1996) 3 SCC6904. (2010) 3 SCC7325. (2001) 8 SCC2896. (1978) 1 SCC2487. (1978) 1 SCC4058. AIR2005SC39369. AIR1961SC37210. (1980) 2 SCC59311. MANU/SC/1061/2011 12. MANU/SC/1011/2011 13. (2003) 8 SCC36114. (2008) 14 SCC18615. (2010) 4 SCC77...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.267 of 1995 and batch 20-03-2014 Kakarla Rosenna and others ....Appellants Thammineni Narasappa and others.... Respondents #Kakarla Rosenna....Petitioner $T.Narasappa and others.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Ravinder Rao & Sri O.Manoher Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.Subba Rao : : ?. Cases referred:1. AIR2003SC19892. AIR1963SC15163. AIR-2001-SC-965 4. (2003(5)-SCC-89) 5. 1975(1)SCC2126. AIR-1976-SC-634 7. AIR-1969-SC-1144 8. 2011(8) SCALE2409. AIR1989SC19310. AIR1987SC124211. AIR1966SC735 12. AIR1954SC45813. AIR1953SC23514. AIR1995SC16715. AIR1988SC719B) 16. 1991 (3) SCC33117. 1998(5)-ALD-349 18. 2003(8)-Supreme Today-194 at 196 19. (2009) 3 SCC28720. AIR1984SC66421. (1994) 5 SCC16722. 1911 ( 35) Bombay-169 23. 1915(39) Bombay 441 24. AIR1951PC725. AIR1963SC185at 193 26. 1870 (7) Bombay HCAC15327. 1869 (12) MIA35028. 1909 (36) Cal 824 29. AIR1961SC130230. 1906 (28) All. 377 31. AIR1926PC192732. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.824 of 2013 Dated:19-07-2013 Akbaruddin Owaisi.... Petitioner The Govt. of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and nine others... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Md. Ismail and Sri Jangoji, Learned Counsel represented by S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondents1 to 6: GP. For Home; Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior Counsel; Sri C. Subba Rao, Sri S. Sriram and Sri N. Harinath, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents. HEAD NOTE: ?. Citations:1. (2001) 6 SCC1812) (2010) 12 SCC2543) AIR (32) 1945 PC184) (2013) Cri.L.J.776 (SC) 5) (2002) 9 SCC147 AIR2002SC19496) 1992 Supp (1) SCC3357) AIR1994SC288) (2012) 7 SCC4079) AIR1955SC19610) (1985) 1 SCC31711) (1970) 1 SCC65312) 1982 Cri.L.J1557(Kerala HC FB) 13) 1976 Cri.L.J1825(All HC-Lucknow Bench) 14) AIR1968SC11715) 2004 Cri.L.J.1697 (Gauhati HC) 16) 2003 Cri.LJ2976(Patna HC) 17) AIR1962CALC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
ORAL ORDER: (Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This complaint is filed against MAYTAS (herein after called the developer) praying to direct the developer to hand over the finished flat under sale by executing registered sale deed or in the alternative refund the sale consideration with interest, besides penalty amount @ Rs. 5/- per sft of the super built up area together compensation and costs and also against State Bank of India (herein after called the bank) for refund of the amount disbursed by the bank to the developer together with penal interest and credit into their loan account etc. u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2) The case of the complainants in brief is that the developer floated a venture and agreed to sell apartments situated in Sy192/P to 198/P, 201/P and 282/P at Bachupally of Qutubullapur Mandal, in Ranga Reddy district in an extent of Ac. 85.36 Guntas of land. The developer represented that it had obtained layout permission from HUDA on 21-3-2006 fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
(Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA and J SC.F) Department dated 16 Nov 11 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law wholly unconstitutinal and quash the same as such and consequently quash the notification dated 22 Dec 11 prepared by the 2nd Respondent as illegal and contrary to law and consequently or/and in the alternative declare that the amendment issued vide G.O.Ms.No.132 Law (LA and J SC. F) department dated 16 Nov 11 is only prospective in nature and shall not be made applicable to the selection process already started pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 19.8.010 issued by the 1st Respondent for appointment to 18 District and Sessions Judges and consequently direct the respondents to prepare a fresh select list of recruit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order:- Since the facts of all these petitions are one and the same and common arguments have been advanced by both the learned counsel in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Petition Nos.4593 and 4594 of 2012 have been filed by M/s. Jagati Publications Limited and V. Vijaya Sai Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) respectively, seeking to set aside/quash the orders of the Principal Special Judge, CBI Cases, Hyderabad,(hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’) dated 27.04.2012 made in R.C. No.19(A)/2011 taking cognizance of the final report submitted on 31.03.2012 and in issuing summons to the accused by assigning C.C. No.8 of 2012 and to direct the Special Judge to consider the taking of cognizance in the matter after entire investigation is completed. Criminal Petition No.4742 of 2012 has been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2012 passed in C.C. No.8 of 2012 in R.C. No.19(A)/2011-CBI/HYD, by the Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITON NOs.25583 of 2010, 1708, 17915, 17922 AND 1793.OF 201.31-01-2012 V. Narasimha Rao The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad rep., by its Secretary and seven others. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Mines & Geology G.P. for Industries & Commerce G.P. for Revenue Sri P. Kamlakar Sri S. Sri Ram Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar Addl. Advocate General Citations:1. (1982) 2 SCC 44.2) (2010) 10 SCC 32.3) (1998) 1 SC4. (2008) 3 SCC 54.5) (1996) 6 SCC 58.6) 2011(3) ALD 68.(DB) 7) 2001(4) SCC 53.8) 2003(1) SCC 69.9) AIR 199.SC 174.10) AIR 196.SC 167.11) (1984 (2) SCC 50.12) (2001)8 SCC 6.13) (2003)5 SCC 13.14) (2003)2 SCC 45.15) (2005)10 SCC 43.16) (2004)11 SCC 62.17) (1986 (4) SCC 74.18) AIR 199.SC 9.19) (2001)4SCC 13.20) (2001)3 SCC 73.21) (2001) 5 SCC 40.22) (2001)8 SCC 67.23) (2001) 8 SCC 54.24) (2004)7 SCC 59.25) (2007) 2 S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT453
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 22 of 78 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was instituted praying for the relief of eviction after demolishing the construction made on a portion of the plaint schedule property and also for the relief of injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or any of them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs relating to the area marked in red in the sketch and for mesne profits and also for the other appropriate reliefs.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 7, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 and Ex.X.1 and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!