Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD213
1. This Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner purported to be in public interest. He prays for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents herein in modifying the scheme of Water Supply to the 'fifthrespondent- Municipality through PSC pipes instead of RCC pipes by inviting tenders through Bid Notice No. 765/NRT/WSS/ PWGM/RI/D4/97-1 Dt. 18-8-1997 as illegal and void. The petitioner consequently prays for issuance of an appropriate direction directing the respondents to implement the Water-supply scheme as per the earlier estimates furnished.2. The petitioner is a retired Government Employee and a resident of Narsaraopet town. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents i and 2 herein in awarding the contract of the work relating to supply of water to the residents of Narasaraopet Municipality. The petitioner alleges abuse of official st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD392; 2006(5)ALT772
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the permit No. 475/94 in file No. 35/IP6/94 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the sixth respondent permitting respondents 4 to 6 to construct a multi-storied building complex in premises No. 4-1-1225, King Kothi Road.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are briefly stated thus: Late A.B.H. Khursheed who is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 4-1-1225 had constructed two separate buildings, one on the south and another on the north facing the main CC road leaving a passage of about 10 feet in-between the two buildings. The second petitioner purchased the southern side of the building, namely, D. No. 4-1-1225/2 in the year 1975 and since then she has been in possession of the said property. Late Khursheed executed a will in favour of his unmarried sister Ms. Khursheed Banu and as per the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD462; 1998(4)ALT543
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision petitions arise out of a common judgment, whereunder, three suits viz., O.S.Nos.1181, 1183 and 1184 of 1998 and three original petitions viz., O.P.Nos.371, 372 and 374 of 1988 were disposed of by the lower Court.2. Three works covering three parts were awarded to the appellant-Contractor by the Respondent-Deputy Manager of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Ramgundam, hereinafter called 'NTPC' for brevity. The work under Part-I covering a length of 944 metres was awarded to the Contractor by the NTPC vide award No.09/ CS/NIT/48/3 LOA - 320/1105 dated 27-1-1981/29-1-1981. The cost of the work is Rs.9,97,137.37 ps and it was agreed to be completed within four months from the day of issue of the letter of award. Similarly, the work under Part-II covering a length of 688 metres was awarded to the Contractor under letter of award No.09/CS/NIT/48-5/4/ LOA-321-1106 dated 27-1-81/29-1-81 27-1-81/29-1-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD539; 2006(1)ALT641
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 15-7-2004 made in I.A. No. 829 of 2004 in O.S.No. 188 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District.2. Petitioners are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 188 of 2004, which was laid seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff as Archaka of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Kudurucheemanapalli. Along with the suit, the respondent-plaintiff also filed LA. No. 829 of 2004 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. By an order dated 15-7-2004, the trial Court while depensing with urgent notice granted temporary injunction. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that though w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(1)ALD425; 2007(2)ALT254
D. Appa Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the father against his sons, when a decree for partition was granted on a suit filed by them in O.S. No. 608 of 1995 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.2. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression.3. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant. They constituteundivided Hindu Joint Family. They own the plaint schedule properties, items 1 to 7, various extents of lands and house, situated in various villages, which their father got in partition with his father and brothers. They have been living with their mother as she was driven away by their father. They were never looked after by him. Around Rs. 60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- would be the annual income from out of the plaint schedule properties. It was misappropriated by the father without paying any amount to them. Since it is no longer beneficial for them to be joint with their father, they demanded partition of the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)391; 2004CriLJ2162
S.R.K. Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, in S.C. No. 73 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 395, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution can be stated in brief as follows :On the night of 3-7-1995 P.W.1 and his wife, P.W.2 and Madireddy Swarnasree were sleeping in the varandah of the house. At about mid-night P.W. 1 got up and found six persons coming towards his house. They came, tied the hands of P.W.1 and slapped Anjireddy and broke open the door, entered the house and committed theft of 15,000/-rupees cash, a watch as well as the gold ear studs and nose ring of Gampa Anasuya. Similar offence was made in the house of P.W.3. P.W.4 and others. On the strength of a complaint given by P.W. 1, Police registered Ex.P-24 FIR. On 31-10-1995 at about 3.00 p.m. A-1 and A-5 were arrested, and on the strength of the confession said to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The first respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No.3-5-784/A/2 to 6 situated at King Koti, Hyderabad. The same is let out to the appellants for running a Hotel named M/s. Hi-Line Hotel & Bakery. There is a footpath behind the Hotel. It is alleged that the appellants encroached upon the footpath and put up Haleem Bhattis (ovens) along with tin sheds. The first respondent, therefore, gave a representation on 28.08.2009 to the Officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), in vain. He then filed the writ petition seeking a direction to GHMC and its Officials to cancel appellants' Hotel licence. The writ petition was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the civil suits are pending between the parties and the writ petition is a ruse to defeat lessees' rights. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant City Planner inspected the area and submitted a report on 08.10.2009. As per the said report the appellants encroached on the footpath for sometime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
K.C.BHANU, J.ORDER :1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Employees' Union, represented by its President C.Satish Kumar filed the present Writ Petition challenging the agreement dated 21.02.2009 entered into by the second respondent with the third respondent for the purpose of developing integrated MSW management system in second respondent corporation area as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to public interest.2. The averments, in brief, of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows:Petitioner is a registered trade union representing employees working in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'GHMC'). In order to protect the interest of its members and also to see that respondents 1 and 2 are kept within the bounds of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'GHMC Act, 1955') and the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short, hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5846 OF201406-08-2014 The Superintendent of Customs (Cus-Prev) Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hqrs Office Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500004 rep. by Special P.P. Petitioner/ Complainant Kannur Abdul Kader Mohammed HaneefaS/o. Sri Abdul Khader Kannur Bayan Kunhi, Age:33. years, r/o. Penne House, 1/90(50)Sooramsani Kannur Post,Kasargod District-671321 Kerala State Respondent/ Accused Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant : Sri U.L.N. Sudhakar Special Public Prosecutor for Customs, Hyderabad. Counsel for Respondent/ Accused : M.Jagadish Kumar, Counsel for respondent. : ?. Cases referred:01. 1987 ELT324(AP) 02. 1997(2) ALT (Crl.) 529 (DB) (AP) 03. 2012(3) SCC Crl.1249 04. 1987(32) ELT32405. 1976 (1) Crl LJ page 386 06. 1985(3) (AP) Crl. LJ Short notes 15 07. 1959 Madya Pradesh 147 08. AIR1984SC71809. AIR1984SC68410. 1988 Crl.L.J.1117 11. 1993 Crl.L.J.2436 12. AIR1955SC19613. AIR1964SC22114. AIR1968SC129215....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990AP100
ORDER1. The Petitioner had produced a film titled 'SEX VGYAN' (Sex Education) and applied on Sept., 18, 1987 to the Addl. Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, at Hyderabad (4th respondent) for certification under S. 5-A of the Cinematograph Act (Act 37 of 1952) for short, 'the Principal Act'. The Examining Committee met on Oct., 28, 1987 and on preview, recommended to grant 'A' Certificate to the film with 13 cuts. On its placement before the Chairman on consideration of the material, he exercised suo motu power and referred to the Revising Committee which saw the film at Bombay on November 18, 1987. All the eight members unanimously recommended that the film in its present form be refused certification and on appeal, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal confirmed it after seeing the film on February 5,1988 and hearing the Counsel. The petitioner is assailing the legality of refusal to grant 'A' Certificate (fit for exhibiting the film to the Adults).2. The film ...
Tag this Judgment!