Court : Andhra Pradesh
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed by A1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2011 in S.C.No.19 of 2002 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore whereby the learned Judge convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer SI for one month, while acquitting A2. 2. The prosecution case is thus: a) A1 and A2 are interrelated and they are also distant relatives of deceased-Pichapati Venkata Subba Reddy and all of them are residents of Ramaswamypalli village of Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District. b) The offence took place on 31.03.2006 at 1 PM at the cattle shed of the deceased in Ramaswamypalli village. Prior to this offence, A1 was involved in one murder case of his daughters. During his remand the deceased did not render financial help or service to A1 though deceased was capable. Further, there were boundary disputes between deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Perused the office objections and heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. This C.M.A is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2016 in S.O.P (SR) No.2632 of 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant for granting succession certificate. Hence, the CMA. 3. The office took the objection that since the impugned order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, how the CMA is maintainable before the High Court. It appears, the office view is that the appeal should have been filed before the concerned District Court. 4. Learned counsel would submit that the Senior Civil Judge entertained the Succession O.P as a delegate of District Judge by virtue of the powers conferred by the High Court under ROC No.40/SO/72.1 and ROC No.40/SO/72.2 and therefore, the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge shall be deemed to have been passed by the District Court and by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing the proceedings dated 12.07.2016 vide Roc No.C2/13024/68/2016, passed by the respondent No.2, which was confirmed by the respondent No.1, vide G.O.Rt.No.2008, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 22.09.2016, as illegal and an un-constitutional. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid detention order dated 12.07.2016 was served on the petitioner s husband (hereinafter shall be referred as detenu ) on 12.07.2016. Since then he is in jail. It is further submitted that the detention order dated 12.07.2016 and grounds based upon, were served in the Malayalam language, as the detenu is from the State of Kerala. He can read, write and understand Malayalam. The detention order dated 12.7.2016 and grounds based on the order passed were served in the language of Malayalam, known language of the detenu. However, rest of the documents have been supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. This revision has been filed by petitioner challenging the order and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed in RCC No.5 of 2009 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed a petition in RCC No.5 of 2009 against the petitioner herein under Section 10 (2)(i)(ii)(b) and Section 3(a)(i)(a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises and to deliver the vacant possession to the respondents with costs. The said petition was allowed with costs by directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule premises within two months from the date of the order. Failing which, the respondents are at liberty to evict the petitioner as per law contemplated. The advocate fee also fixed at Rs.2,000/-. 3. However, the respondents preferred RCA No.2 of 2014 filed under Section 20 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Suresh Kumar Kait, J.) Vide present Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction thereby to set aside detention orders dated 5.6.2016 passed by the second respondent and consequential conformation orders passed by the first respondent vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1870, 1869 and 1870 respectively dated 23.08.2016. In these three Writ Petitions, the issues of facts and law are common. Therefore, these cases are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts and contentions in Writ Petition No.30992 of 2016. It was stated by the learned counsel for both the parties before us that this Writ petition can be taken as representative of the facts and contentions in the other two Writ Petitions. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the detention order dated 5.6.2016 it is mentioned that the petitioner was involved in as many as seven property offences and he has been creating f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. The revision petitioner is the Inspector of Police, who is none other than Accused No.8 in C.C.No.98 of 2013, an outcome of Crime No.15/RCO-ACB-KNR/2011, registered on 14.12.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act ) and Sections 34 and 120-B of IPC, which is based on occurrence report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Kurnool, from a surprise check conducted on 13.12.2011 by intercepting a TATA Victa vehicle belonging to the officials of Excise Department and Rs.3,62,640/- seized from them under the cover of panchanama and the source of money could not be explained by the officials as that was suspected to be the amount collected towards bribe for favouring the owners of Wine Shops, in registering the above crime and from the investigation, including on the searches conducted and seizures effected, the ACB officials filed the final report that was taken cogniz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 16.05.2005 in W.C.Case.No.38 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, R2/New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The parties in this appeal are referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The 1st applicant is the wife, applicant Nos.2, 3 and 5 are sons and applicant No.4 is the daughter of the deceased P.Pandu Reddy. Their case is that deceased was employed by Opposite Party No.1 as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 9U 115. While so, on 13.01.2003 at about 9.45 PM, when the deceased was proceeding from Hyderabad to Chennai, he stopped the lorry near Karvanvodai Bridge for paying toll tax, at that time another lorry bearing No.AP 16U 6322 came at high speed and dashed the lorry of the deceased from back side. In that collision, the deceased sustained grevious injurie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner is an employees union of the employees who were working with the 4th respondent (CCI) at its Adilabad Unit. The brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent Cement Corporation of India is wholly owned by the Central Government Company with 12 units situated at (1) Bokajan, 2) Rajban, 3) Thandoor, 4) Nayagoan, 5) Adilabad, 6) Mandhar, 7) Kurkanta, 8) Akalthara, 9) Charkhi Dadri, 10) Delhi, 11) Bhatinda, 12) Yerraguntla. As the writ petition is concerned in relation to the Adilabad Unit, necessary facts to that extent are only being set out. As per the averments in the writ affidavit, the Adilabad Unit has commenced the operation in September, 1992 with installed capacity of 4.00 lakhs TPA. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, there were 98 workers in the said unit. However, as on the date of hearing of the writ petition as submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there were about 54 employees consisting of 52 employees, one executive a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: 1. These two Company Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they relate to the scheme of arrangement agreed between the two companies, who are the petitioners in both the Company Petitions. The petitioner in Company Petition No.200 of 2016 is Asmitha Microfin Limited (Asmitha) a public limited company incorporated on 26.02.2001. Its registered office is situated in Hyderabad, Telangana. The authorized share capital of the said company as on 01.04.2015 is Rs.400.00 crores divided into 3,50,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and 36,50,00,000 preference shares of Rs.10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital of the company is Rs.333,64,38,510/- divided into 2,43,82,786 fully paid-up equity shares of Rs.10/- each and 30,92,61,065 optionally convertible cumulative redeemable preference shares (OCCRPS) of Rs.10/- each. Similarly, the petitioner in Company Petition No.201 of 2016, SHARE Microfin Limited (SHARE) was registered on 20.04.1999 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed by A1 to A3 against the judgment dated 08.12.2010 in S.C.No.220 of 2010 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar whereby they were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer SI for two months. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under: a) On 07.04.2009, Meenuga Gunna (PW5) lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jedcherla (PW6) stating that on 06.04.2009 she along with her husband Anjaneyulu (deceased) went to Gouri Shanker Colony at Badepalli village to attend 3rd day ceremony of her sister Ranemma. The accused 1 to 3 also attended the said ceremony. While so, A3 took the complainant by the side of huts and started chitchatting. On seeing the same, the deceased suspected her and abused A3 that Aha Kanthri Lanjakodukula tho yemi Matladuchunnavu (why you are talking with that kantri bastar...
Tag this Judgment!