Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: andhra pradesh Page 11 of about 26,474 results (0.229 seconds)

Feb 08 2016 (HC)

M.R. Manikyam Vs. The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the award, dated 31.10.2008, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.181 of 2005. 2. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act'), confirming the order of his removal by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the departmental appellate authority. 3. The case, in brief, is that while the petitioner, who was working as Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at H.C.U.Deport, was conducting a bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 1460 on 27.09.2004, on the route Lingampally to Janwada, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.11/12 i.e., Janwada Cross Roads and noticed that the petitioner, though issued tickets to a batch of 10 passengers, failed to punch the same at stage No.11, and that he also failed to close the S.R for stage No.11 even after crossing the said stage. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2016 (HC)

M/s. Transstroy (India) Limited Vs. The State of Telangana, Department ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. Acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Hyderabad Metro Rail is questioned by the petitioner by challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act of 1894') vide notification No.C/2341/2013 dated 30.12.2013 as well as draft declaration under Section 6 dated 06.01.2015 and the consequential award dated 31.03.2015. Petitioner also sought an alternate relief to direct the third respondent to acquire the property of the petitioner bearing premises No.8-2-293/82/A/61/1 in Plot Nos.60 and 61 of Jubilee Hills admeasuring 2099.97 sq. yards without built up area. 2. Petitioner states in the affidavit that it has purchased the commercial complex comprising of cellar, ground and four upper floors at the aforesaid premises with a total built up area of more than 1,00,000 sq. feet. Petitioner states that at the time of purchase, during due diligence, it was noticed that there was a proposal for 60 feet road widening on the southern side and...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2016 (HC)

Syed Yousuf Ali Vs. Mohd. Yousuf and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. The 4th defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 11.09.2015 over-rulling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant about admissibility of possessory agreement or sale, dated 26.06.2012 marked as Ex.A.1. 2. The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of marking possessory agreement of sale as Ex.A.1 objection could not be raised as it was marked in the affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC in lieu of examination in chief and learned counsel was sick on that day and therefore, questioning the admissibility of the possessory agreement of sale, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, filed memo bri...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2016 (HC)

M. Sitaram Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depo ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. This writ petition is filed by the employee working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad Depot (for short, respondent-Corporation') to quash the award dated 16.01.1998 passed in I.D. No.131 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Labour Court), published on 12.02.1998 by issuing writ of certiorari directing the respondent-Corporation to release the increments with back wages. 2. The petitioner joined in service as driver in the year 1987, discharged his duties, but removed from service by the respondent-Corporation by order dated 31.08.1995 on the ground of misconduct. Aggrieved by the removal order dated 31.08.1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which ended in rejection, confirming the order of the respondent-Corporation and, thereupon, raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No.131 of 1996. But the Labour Court converted the punishment of removal into stoppage of five increments with cumulative effec...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2016 (HC)

Elchuru Gram Panchayat Vs. Standard Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprieto ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Common Order: Since the challenge in these two revisions is to the same order this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present revisions by way of this common order. Grampanchayat, Eluchuru, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District is the petitioner in both these revisions. These revisions are directed against the order, dated 06-10-2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District in E.P.No.60 of 2015 in O.S.No.23 of 2001. The facts and circumstances, in nutshell, leading to filing of the present C.R.Ps. are as infra: First respondent instituted O.S.No.23 of 2011 against the petitioner-Gram Panchayat on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District and the learned Judge decreed the said suit on 18-03-2011. Seeking enforcement of the said decree, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed E.P.No.60 of 2015 by way of attachment of amount kept in the Treasury Office, Martur belonging to the judgment debtor-Gram Panchayat. The p...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2016 (HC)

M/s. Tuunuguntla Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner T.J. Prasad Vs. Maje ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. The revision has arisen out of rent controller-appellate authority's conformation order of rent controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default. The revision petitioner is thus the unsuccessful tenant as respondent in RCC No.46 of 2006. 2. It is the second round of litigation, after the earlier civil suit filed after quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, TP Act') was ended in dismissal mainly on the point of jurisdiction holding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant not covered by the TP Act but governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, Rent Control Act'). 3. It was therefrom under Section 10 of the Rent Control Act was filed. No doubt from perusal of the prayer in the rent control case it did not specifically state as to for bonafide requirement or from willful default the eviction was sought, however reading of the eviction petition...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2016 (HC)

A. Laxman and Others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Common Judgment: (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) These appeals are preferred by the claimants in O.P.Nos.89 and 87 of 1999 respectively under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), calling in question the correctness of the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad for their lands, which stood acquired for a public purpose. The State Government has acquired lands of an extent of Ac.10-02 cents out of total extent of Ac.12-04 cents, which belong to the private individuals while the balance land is that of the Government itself, for the formation of a water tank. The State Government approved the acquisition through their G.O.Rt. No.1819 dated 19th August 1997 and hence, the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was published on 20th August 1997. The Land Acquisition Officer, before finalizing his award, has undertaken inspection of the lands and noticed that the claimants are raising red gram and cotton crops in the la...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2016 (HC)

The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. rep. by its Vi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Common Judgment: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) CCCA No.104 of 2002 has been filed by the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited against the judgment and decree passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.496 of 1994 dated 22.02.2002. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.496 of 1994 filed by M/s. Pottem Brothers, Hyderabad seeking payment of Rs.39,49,657.23, future interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, and the costs of the suit. C.C.C.A.No.138 of 2003 is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.496 of 1994 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed therein to the extent the Court below deducted an additional sum of Rs.30/- per metric tonne as expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for excavating the ore from the mine. Parties in these two appeals shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.496 of 1994. In the plaint filed in O.S. No.496 of 1994, the plaintiff stated that an agreement was executed on...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2016 (HC)

Vijender Kumar Kedia and Others Vs. Salesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Common Judgment: 1. The respective sole defendants are the appellants herein and the respective self-same sole plaintiffs in both the matters are the respondents. Both the suits in O.S. No.1960 of 1988 and 1959 of 1988 are filed by the self-same plaintiff Saleh against the respective defendants Dhanraj and Vijenderkumar Kedia. The trial Court on separate trial decreed both the suits for the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale respectively, to execute and register sale deeds on receiving balance sale consideration and to deliver possession and with costs. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal common almost in both the appeals of the respective suits are that the decree and judgment respectively of the trial Court supra are contrary to law, unlawful and against probabilities of the case, perverse and misconceived against the canons of justice. 3. It is specifically contended by the defendant-appellant respectively supra that the trial Court ought to have seen th...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2016 (HC)

Nelakudithi Venkatapathi Rao and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in stopping erection of statue occupying road margin adjacent to the wall of the Primary Aided Co-operative Society, Dondapadu Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District without approval from the Statue Committee, in violation of the interim orders of the Supreme Court and also G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners pleaded that they are the residents of Dondapadu Village, Guntur District and that both of them are farmers. That Dondapadu Village is predominantly agriculture based one and that roads get blocked when tractors and bullock carts pass through them, that there was a proposal to widen the roads to accommodate the growing traffic and the buses plying to the Village, that lorries are frequenting the Village and when the capital region works progress, there will be increased traffic and that any reduction of road width or occupation of road margin and carr...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //