Andhra Pradesh Court June 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
indur Finance Corporation and Partnership Firm Vs. Gopal and Company a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas981(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J.1. These three appeals, no doubt, arise out of the different judgments made in O.S. No. 20 of 1984, O.S. No. 35 of 1984 and O.S. No. 32 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad. The plaintiffs in all the above suits are the appellants and aggrieved by the judgments and decrees made in the said suits, negativing the relief as against defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in O.S. No. 20 of 1984; and defendant Nos. 4 to 7 in other suits i.e., O.S. No. 35 of 1984 and O.S. No. 32 of 1984, respeetively. These appeals are filed. The 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 20 of 1984 is shown as 4th defendant in other two suits and the partners of the said firm are impleaded as the other defendants, referred to supra, and the relief was negatived as against these defendants and aggrieved by the same, sinee the appellant-plaintiffs only had succeeded partly the present appeals are preferred praying for a decree as prayed for as against the rest of the defendants also. 2. The facts, in brief, ...
Challarapu Kumaraswamy Vs. Thanna Narasannaidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD15; 2002(6)ALT402
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 20 of 1993 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, initially against respondents 1 and 2 for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property and subsequently impleaded the 3rd respondent as a party to the suit. Consequent on the death of 1st respondent, 4th respondent and one T. Savitri were brought on record as his legal representatives. After both sides adduced evidence the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 133 of 1999 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by introducing the relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property also. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, but on revision in C.R.P. No. 1162 of 1999, a learned single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 13.6.1999 allowed the revision petition with a di...
Kailash Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Centre P. Ltd. Vs. D.G. of Healt ...
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...
Syed Maqsood Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP123; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)517; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)327
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court who has found himself not able to follow a Judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in Syed Jamaluddin v. Valiam Bee, 1975 (2) APLJ 20 : (1975 Cri LJ 1884). The reasons for not following this judgment are the judgment of various other HighCourts. We have gone through those judgments and we do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Syed Jamaluddin v. Valiam Bee (1975 Cri LJ 1884) (supra) needs reconsideration and we find ourselves in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.2. The question referred to Division Bench by the learned single Judge is. 'whether even if the fact of divorce is true, whether it would be invalid and cannot be acted upon on the ground that it was effected by the husband on unreasonable grounds and that it was not proceeded by any efforts for reconciliation'. The learned single...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sakala Veera Bhadraiah and Co ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC118; 2004ACJ1987; 2002(5)ALT258
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 414 of 1987 against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1995 passed by the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 54,39,207 with subsequent interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 37,96,555 from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. The defendants were also directed to pay the sum of Rs. 2,07,394 towards costs.2. The suit was laid by the plaintiffs contending therein that the plaintiff No. 1 was a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and was carrying on business in cotton and cottonseeds with a ginning and oil mill at Nagulapadu, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Ponnur DMC. Plaintiff No. 2 is Bank of Baroda carrying on business at its branches at Pedanandi...
Central Warehousing Corporation, a Govt. of India Undertaking and anr. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC682
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. In both the above Appeals, the Central Wear-Housing Corporation, a Government of India undertaking, represented by its Regional Manger. Hyderabad, is the appellant A.S. No. 1213/89 is filed as against the Judgement and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry made in O.S, No. 154/78, a suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,58,286-31 towards damages for breach of contract A.S. No. 611/89 is filed by the self-same Corporation, hereinafter referred to in short as 'Corporation' for the purpose of convenience, the defendants in O.S, No. 165/78, a suit filed by one Namala Narayan Murthy who died pending litigation and the legal representatives were brought on record, for return of security deposit of Rs. 15,000/- with interest of 12% per annum and also for settlement of accounts, Thus, the legal representatives of the plaintiff Narayana Murthy in O.S. No. 165/78 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry are the defendants in the oth...
Sannepalli Nageswar Rao and anr. Vs. District Collector, Khammam and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD497; 2002(4)ALT465
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Wehave heard Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy for appellant, Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar for respondent No. 4 and the Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents 1 to 3.2. The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 21-2-2002 disposing of Writ Petition No.3405 of 2002 filed by the appellants herein and directing the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete enquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Insofar as the contention raised by the appellants/writ petitioners that the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has no right, authority or jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry is concerned, the learned single Judge left open that point to be raised before the same authority, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer.3. In this case, according to the appellants, they are the pattadars, owners and possessors of Ac.6.21 guntas and Ac. 4.20 ...
J. Vijayakumar Vs. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD854
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in RC No. D6/7491/1991, dated 16-4-1992 of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nizamabad and to quash the same as being unreasonable and arbitrary.2. By virtue of the impugned proceedings, the social status certificate from the Office of the then Tahsildar, Bodhan dated 27-4-1985, which was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan on 31-12-1987 was cancelled by the respondent after due enquiry.3. It is averred that the petitioner was born to Christian parents of Scheduled Caste origin, who belong to Mala community, SCs and SC Christians share the same habitation in the outskirts of the villages leading the same social, economic and cultural life in the Society. He was not baptized though he is born to Christian parents. At the time of admission into the U.P School at Andapur, his religion was noted as Christian and the said entry was carried in the other sc...
Union Bank of India Vs. Pothineni Naraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD147
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appeal is filed by Union Bank of India, Pamarru, represented by its Branch Manager, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below on the ground that the defendants/ respondents are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of A.P. Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1938 (in short called as Act IV of 1938). 2. The Appeal is dismissed for default against Respondent No. 2. The appellant/ plaintiff filed O.S.No. 13 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki. The Suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 50,574.10 ps., by sale of the plaint schedule lands mortgaged by the first defendant by passing a preliminary decree with an interest as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. 3. It is pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff Bank that the 1st respondent/1st defendant approached the plaintiff for agricultural crop loan and he mortgaged the plaint schedule lands by executing a simple mortgage deed dated 22.8.1973 for Rs. 10,000/- and it is a continuing one for the ...
Dokala Veeramma and ors. Vs. Dokala Ramayamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT392
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur in Memo bearing SR. No. 3871 of 1999 in O.S. No. 144 of 1996, dated 9-7-1999.2. Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. They filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 144 of 1996. During the course of evidence, petitioners filed three documents namely registered partition deed dated 1-9-1957, endorsement dated 30-9-1976 on the said partition deed and another list of partitioned items dated 28-8-1978. The receipt of those documents were objected by the other side. But, however, two documents were allowed. The third document viz., endorsement dated 30-9-1976 on the partition deed dt. 1-9-1957 was not received in evidence on the ground that it is a compulsory registrable document and it was rejected for want of stamp duty and registration. The said Order of the lower court is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.3. The learned coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »