Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-04-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD562; 2004(1)ALT195; 2004(1)ARBLR319(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The petitioner, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, had filed the present O.P. under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short, praying for the relief to set aside the award dated 28-2-1991 made by Sri Gurucharan Singh, Umpire, 12, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057, shown as 1st respondent in the O.P., relating to the work of construction of land based works at Lova Gardens which is C-2 works and marine works and break water construction, which is C-3 works. The Contractor M/s. Continental Constructions Limited, Continental House, 28, Place, New Delhi 110018, is shown as 2nd respondent in the O.P.2. The O.P. was filed in the matter of C.M.A. No.162/80 and C.M.A. No. 1189/82, The petitioner, no doubt, had raised several grounds in the main O.P. and also in the supplemental statement to the said O.P. on objections filed by M/s. Continental Construction Limited, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-24-2003
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD826; 2003(1)ALT688
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. Thepetitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records and the orders dated 6-4-2002 passed in Appeal Nos.A2/3823 to 3829 of 2001 and quash the same. The impugned order passed by the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy district, is challenged on various grounds. 2. Before we consider the question as to the validity of the impugned order, it may be relevant to notice a few facts leading to filing of this writ petition.3. The petitioners claim to have purchased the land ad measuring about Ac.50-39 guntas in Survey Nos.163, 164/1, 165 to 170, 170/1, 172/1, 173, 174, 177 to 179 situated at Gundlapochampalli, Medchal mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under an agreement of sale dated 15-01-1980; two unregistered sale deeds dated 16-08-1989 and two registered sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-01-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)ALT24
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a writ of Mandamus filed by 20 petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a direction to the respondents not to evict them from the lands of the 2nd respondent in which they are in possession as cultivating tenants and to strike down Section 6 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 27 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 27 of 2002' for the sake of brevity) and Section 3 of the A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 28 of 2002} as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are briefly as follows:3. The second respondent is a charitable institution. It is the absolute owner of Ac. 119-84 cents of land situated in Virivada Village and Ac. 2-24 cents in Fakruddinpalem Village of Pithapur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-12-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ALD435
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 1st respondent-University in denying admission to the petitioner in MD (General Medicine) Course in Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, against the in service OC category as unconstitutional and illegal and further to declare that the action of the 1st respondent-University in granting admission to the 4th respondent into the said course is illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential reliefs.2. The facts are not in dispute. For the Academic Year 2002-2003 entrance testwas conducted on 30.10.2002 for admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University.3. The petitioner who completed MBBS Course in the year 1981 from Kurnool Medical College, after completing one year housemanship at the Government General Hospital, Kurnool worked as a Medical Officer with South Eastern Railway Division till 1987. Thereafter he resigne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-24-2003
Reported in : AIR2004AP136; 2004(1)ALD228; 2004(1)ALT250
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (TCSR, J), the matter has come up before us for adjudication.2. It is expedient to look at the factual matrix at the threshold for brevity and better understanding of the matter. A suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale was filed in O.S. No. 28 of 1980 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The property which is the subject-matter of the suit was valued at Rs. 45,000/- for the purposes of Court fee and Court jurisdiction. Eventually, the suit ended in dismissal at the culmination of the trial by the judgment dated 31.12.1990. During the pendency of the suit, the A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 (for brevity 'the Act 30/89') raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts had been passed and came into effect from 2.12.1989 onwards. Under the said Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court/Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-24-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)ALD222
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The first petitioner is a firm and petitioners 2 and 3 are its partners. They are tenants of mulgi bearing No. 1-2-174, Charkaman, Hyderabad, owned by the respondents. In 1985, the second petitioner along with two others filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by one Madanlal Gupta in respect of mulgies bearing No. 21-2-172, 173 and 174, Charkaman, Hyderabad. The second petitioner along with one Devakinandam filed O.S. No. 2587 of 1985 (later numbered as O.S. No. 307 of 1993) on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 1 and 2 for perpetual injunction restraining them from changing the nature of the suit schedule premises. The Trial Court, by a common judgment dated 16-2-1994 decreed both the suits in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree respondents and others filed first appeals before this Court being C.C.C.A. Nos. 39, 41, 194, 47 of 1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-28-2003
Reported in : AIR2003AP536; 2003(5)ALD284; 2003(5)ALT287
ORDER1. Heard both the sides.2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, except minor details like dates and places of tender notification, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner's are the societies consisting of the members belonging to the scheduled tribes. Their grievance in both the writ petitions is that the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), which is an instrumentality of the State is leasing the stalls/shops in the Bus Stations situated in agency areas, to non-tribals by inviting tender, which is contrary to Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short 'the Regulations') and also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Samatha v. State of A.P., : AIR1997SC3297 . The petitioners also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Pingili Pratap Reddy v. Dandu Pullam Raju, 1989 (3) ALT 319, and stated that any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2003
Reported in : AIR2004AP448; 2003(5)ALD241; 2003(5)ALT265
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 597 of 1969 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who are the unsuccessful appellants in C.C.C.A. No. 46 of 1985, are the appellants. First respondent is the second plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court.2. One Ramdas Maharaj @ Ramdas Brahmachari (first plaintiff) filed a petition seeking leave to sue as an indigent person seeking declaration of his title to Ac.6.14 Gts., of land in S.Nos. 182/1 and 182/2 of Gudimalkapur Village, bounded on the East by the border of Moosi Karwan Sahu and Kulsumpura, North by the road from Lunger House to Hyderabad, West by the border of Moosi Lunger House, and South by the river Moosi, hereinafter referred to as the suit property, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession ove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-21-2003
Reported in : AIR2004AP66; 2003(5)ALD484
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 8 of 1979 dated 6.2.1980 on the file of the District Court, at Visakhapatnam.2. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that the suit schedule land is not a communal poromboke but a ryoti land belonging to the plaintiff and consequently sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant/Government from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by the plaintiff, for recovery of Rs. 76,608/- being the penalty and paid interest as per memo, for subsequent interest, for costs and such other reliefs which the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule land is situated in Vada Cheepurpally village, Anakepalli Taluk, Visakhapatnam District, which forms part of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-23-2003
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD858; 2004(4)ALT286
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nizamabad is the appellant before this Court, The Plaintiff- respondent herein filed the above suit against the first defendant, the adopted son of one Muthyala Veerappa. Second and third defendants, who are the wife and concubine of late Veerappa respectively seeking partition of the family properties by metes and bounds into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share to her, she being the adoptive daughter of late Veerappa towards 1/3rd share which she is entitled to. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that the respondent herein was never taken in adoption by late Veerappa and she is the daughter of younger sister of third defendant, the concubine of late Veerappa during his lifetime. He made a provision for the stay of the third defendant-concubine by giving a house bearing Door Nos. 4-5-412 and 4-5-413 and after her death the property shall revert back to the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!