Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD460; 2002(6)ALT326; 2003CriLJ1596
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-9-2002 made in Contempt Case No. 704 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 27-9-2002 punished the appellant herein with imprisonment to stand up in the Court till the Court raises and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine within two weeks and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The said order is challenged on various grounds by the appellant. 2. In order to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant herein challenging the impugned order, it may be necessary to notice certain basic statutory features enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD481; 2002(6)ALT429
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Plaintiffs in OS No. 29 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, preferred AS No. 1204 of 1994 to this Court against the decree of dismissal and filed CMP No. 14374 of 1994 seeking an injunction restraining the respondents in the appeal from alienating the properties covered by the suit during the pendency of the appeal. A learned single Judge of this Court granted an ex parte order of injunction on 28-10-1994. Subsequently respondents in the appeal filed CMP No. 18845 of 1994 to vacate the ex parte order of injunction dated 28-10-1995. By an order dated 2-12-1994, a learned single Judge of this Court, taking into consideration the averment in para 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the appeal that they are not trying to alienate any properties in question, feeling that there is no need to continue the interim injunction granted on 28-10-1994, in view of the statement, vacated the ex parte injunction, by ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT621
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant who suffered an ex parte decree assailing the order of the Court below refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The facts which are necessary for determination of the question involved in this Revision Petition, are as follows:The respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 3636 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, against the revision petitioner seeking a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,270/- with interest at 18% p.a. The Revision Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, filed written statement on 13-4-1995. After settlement of issues the suit was taken up for trial and on 11-3-1997 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The suit was adjourned to 21-3-1997 for the evidence of the defendant, since the defendant and her counsel were called absent, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-18-2002
Reported in : 2003LC540(AP); 2003(153)ELT281(AP)
ORDER1. These writ petitions were taken together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. W.P. No. 1544 of 1998 has been filed by Medwin Hospital challenging an order dated 25-11-1997 withdrawing the exemption granted in respect of the customs duty. The main ground of challenge is that the impugned order is contrary to the policy of the Government of India spelled out through notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988.3. W.P. No. 3109 of 1998 has been filed by Godavari CT Scanning Centre challenging the proceedings of 1st Respondent dated 7-1-1998. By this order also the exemption certificate dated 16-6-1994 granted to the petitioner in respect of the customs duty was withdrawn.4. W.P. No. 1533 of 1998 has been filed by M/s. Medinova Diagnostic Services challenging an order dated 19-12-1997 by which also the exemption granted in respect of the customs duty was withdrawn.5. W.P. No. 33257 of 1997 has been filed by Kailash Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Centre. In this writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-10-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT725; 2002CriLJ4009
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 'to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 21, proviso to Article 309, Article 311 and also Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also declare Cl. 4 (d) of Memo No.700/SC/D/88-4 dated 13-2-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, if necessary by declaring Sections 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violating the basic structure and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to drop all proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. No.10/RC-NLR/95, dated 19-09-1995 initiated by the respondents herein bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-17-2002
Reported in : AIR2003AP94; 2002(5)ALD763; 2003(1)ALT336
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. All these four writ petitions are interconnected, and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of expedience, the petitioner in WP No. 9684 of 1994 shall be referred to as 'the Builder' for he is said to have constructed the multi-storied building christened 'Meera Niketan' located a Kutbiguda, Hyderabad, while the petitioners in WP Nos.9875, 10639 and 10755 of 1994, shall be referred to as 'the Purchasers' for they claim to have purchased the flats in the building, and while the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall be referred to as 'the Corporation'.3. The Builder filed WP No. 9684 of 1994, initially impugning the press release dated 11-5-1994, issued by the Corporation, in the newspapers, namely The Hindu, Newstime, Indian Express, etc., threatening to demolish the building, as illegal and arbitrary.4. Subsequently, the Builder filed WP MP No. 27085 of 1999 seeking to amend the prayer in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-16-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD346; 2002(4)ALT645
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. CRP 2437 of 1997 is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 24th April 1997 in O.S. No. 159 of 1992 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal. C.R.P. 2232 of 1999 is filed by the defendants against the order dated 30th April 1999, in T.A. 247 of 1999 in O.S. No. 11 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. 2. As the parties and the property involved in both the C.R.Ps. are common,these two civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The necessary facts for the disposal of these two revision petitions are as follows: 3. The suit in OS 159 of 1992 was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Under the letter Ex.A1 dated 7-1-1992, the defendants in the suit requested the plaintiffs to permit them to hold 'Yagna' in the plaint schedule premises and the plaintiffs passed a resolution Ex.A-2 dated 20-1-1992 permitting the defendants to conduct Yagna in the plaint schedule premises. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-25-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD338
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, registered in the year 1997 under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are advancement of the medical education, para medical education, education of health sciences and research development.2. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited applications through notification dated 14-8-2000 for establishment of private medical colleges at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such place was Karimnagar. The petitioner, intending to establish a medicul college at Karimnagar with an intake of 150 students under the name and style of 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences' (for short, 'the medical college') has submitted its application together with necessary enclosures for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The applications were verified by the Committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-16-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD323
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking for a declaration by way of writ of mandamus that the impugned bill Nos.TM/FH/GB/1 to 4, dated 9th May, 1990 are illegal and arbitrary and also for a direction not to enforce the said bills.2. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1st petitioner is a company limited by shares registered under the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the 2nd petitioner is an officer and shareholder of the 1st petitioner-company. The 1st respondent is a Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port constituted under and governed by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The 1st respondent is an authority under the control of Government of India and as such, constitutes State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitutionof India. The 2nd respondent is an officer of the 1st respondent, who passed the impugned orders.3. It is further averred that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD500
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the seven City Civil Court Appeals. The parties are related. Two suits were filed for partition of plaint-A schedule immovable properties and plaint-B schedule business concerns and plaint-C schedule movable properties. Two other suits were filed by one of the defendants for dissolution and accounts of two firms. It is convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit filed by Veesamsetti Krishna Murthy. The following genealogy table would show the relationship of the parties to the suit. Veesamsetti Srisailam(died) | _____________________________________________________________________________________ | |Veesamsetti Buggaiah (died in 1978) Veesamsetti Rangaiah _____ | V. Ananta lakshmi [Wife D7, (died in1990)] ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | V. Yadagiri V. Narasimhulu V. Lakshmi V. Ayodhya V. Kotestwar V. Krishna V. Srisailam E....
Tag this Judgment!