Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1259
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 410 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandyal. The petitioners herein are accused 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 410 of 2004 for offences under Sections 418, 420, 425 and 427 IPC.2. A complaint was filed in Cr. No. 100 of 2004 before the Nandyal III Town Police Station by the complainant, a partnership firm carrying on business in the supply of cotton bales on short term credit, against six accused. The Ist accused is a cotton mill represented by its Executive Director, the 2nd accused is the Executive Director and accused Nos. 3 to 6 are the Directors of the 1st accused mill.3. Since the rival contentions revolve mainly around the question as to whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint/charge sheet, even if accepted as true, make out a case against the petitioners herein, of their having committed the offences of which they are charged, it is necessary to extract the rele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD73
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. W.P.No.14048 of 2006 is filed by Darus Salam Educational Trust seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms.No.54, Higher Education (EC) Department dated 10.5.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.59, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26.5.2006 and the proceedings of the first respondent- Government of Andhra Pradesh in letter No. 2973/EC/2/2006-1 dated 20.6.2006 as arbitrary, illegal amounting to colourable exercise of power and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : AIR2003SC355 and for consequentially setting aside the rules framed in the above said G.Os., particularly Rules 3, 5 and 6 and proceedings of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to manage and administer the educational institut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD105; 2007(3)ALT516
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 6068 of 2004 is filed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6334 of 1997. W.P. Nos. 6123 of 2004 and 16890 of 2006 are filed against the order in O.A. No. 1854 of 1997.2. O.A. No. 1854 of 1997 and batch, which included O.A. No. 6334 of 1997, was allowed by the Tribunal, in its order dated 27-03-2003, and the rules in G.O.Ms. No. 14 dated 26-11-1994, as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 09-05-1996, to the extent they provided a channel for the senior assistants and senior stenographers, working in the head office of the labour, factories and boiler departments and subordinate offices of the factories and boilers department, to be appointed by transfer to the post of assistant labour officer and the related provisions providing for quota and rotation etc., to these categories, were declared void being violative of the mandatory provisions of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD694
D. Appa Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in O.S. No. 7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the daughter of the 1st defendant. D2 to D5 are her sisters. Her marriage was performed on 11.5.1986. The marriage of 5th defendant was performed subsequently. The marriages of D2 and D3 were performed about 20 years ago. D2 and D4 were given substantial properties from out of the joint family properties and therefore, they were not entitled to any share. She is having 1/3rd share along with D1 and D5. During the pendency of the suit, D1 said to have executed a settlement deed dated 9.3.1996, and a registered Will dated 26.5.1993, in respect of the joint family properties. They are not valid. D6 claims that he is the adopted son of D1. It is not true. This plea was put up to deny her share. She gave a lawye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD752
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 3211 of 2006 was filed seeking to have the provisional assessment notice dated 17.02.2006, issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation of the Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When the matter came up for admission on 17.3.2006 the learned Single Judge, while examining the question, whether the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered the inspecting officer to disconnect power supply if a person was found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, noticed an apparent conflict between two earlier Division Bench Judgments in Komarapu Chiranjeevulu v. Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd. Judgement in W.A. No. 194 of 2004 dated 9.7.2004, and Mallikarjuna Polishing Industries v. Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Judgment in W.A. Nos. 452 and 477 of 2004 dated 11.3.2004, Whil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALT580
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 3211 of 2006 was filed seeking to have the provisional assessment notice dated 17-02-2006, issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation of the Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When the matter came up for admission on 17-3-2006 the learned Single Judge, while examining the question, whether the provisions 6f the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered the inspecting officer to disconnect power supply if a person was found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, noticed an apparent conflict between two earlier Division Bench Judgments in Komarapu Chiranjeevulu v. Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd. Judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2004, dt.9-7-2004 and Mallikarjuna Polishing Industries v. Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Judgment in W.A. Nos. 452 and 477 of 2004, dt.11-3-2004 While the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALT69
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Since all these matters involve the same subject matter and commonly touching questions, they are taken up together for disposal.2. In W.P. No. 28470 of 1995, which was filed on 15-12-1995, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Abdul Basith, seek a Writ of Certiorari assailing the orders in L.G.C. No. 46/89, dated 30-10-1995 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, dismissing their application filed under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for brevity the 'Act') to declare the respondents as land grabbers and seek eviction and consequent reliefs in respect of the property admeasuring Acs.6.34 guntas in Sy. No. 129/51 (old) new Sy. No. 328 situated in Shaikpet Village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District. These proceedings are filed against the respondents, who include the Government as the first respondent and V.R.K. Sastry as fifth respondent and M/s. Kaushik Co-op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD53
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Orders dated 22-7-1997 of the 5th respondent and also the Orders dated 3-12-1997 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to accept the withdrawal of resignation submitted by the petitioner and allow him to continue in service of the Border Roads Organization (BRO).2. It appears, petitioner on passing Union Public Service Examination in 1988 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the BRO. He joined the said Organization in May, 1990 and was posted to 86 Road Construction Company (Projects), Swastik and after rendering considerable length of service in the said project, he was transferred to 1443 Bridge Construction Company (BCC) Project, Udayak. While working at 1443 BCC he had applied for leave from 30-4-1996 to 10-6-1996 owing to some d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD631
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the judgment rendered in O.S. No. 471 of 1990 and counter-claim therein, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 4.9.2006, passed in O.S. No. 471 of 1990, by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts and decreeing the counter-claim filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs seeking execution of release relinquishment deeds in respect of the schedule properties appended to the written statement, the plaintiffs filed both these appeals CCCA No. 110 of 2007 in respect of the claim arising out of the suit and CCCA No. 51 of 2007 in respect of the counterclaim filed by the defendants in the suit.3. Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 471 of 1990, before the Court below.4. For the sake of conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT225
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Simhadri and Smt. Vedavani, the Counsel representing the writ petitioners in these Writ Petitions and also Sri Ravi Kondaveeti and Sri Y. Ramatheertha, Counsel representing the respondents.2. W.P. No. 6846/2007 is filed by one S. Ravi Kanth, praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., in filing the Crl. M.P. No. 954/2002 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad without first issuing the mandatory notice Under Section 13(4) of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Act and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed in Crl. M.P. No. 954/2002, dt. 16-3-2007 appointing an Advocate Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!