Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Vs. P.V. Sitamahalaxmi and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC524; 2004ACJ1332; 2002(6)ALD456
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. This is an appeal by District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Mahabubnagar, represented by its General Manager Sri T. Suresh. The appellant herein was aggrieved by the award passed in OP No. 313 of 1989 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar making the appellant liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. These two persons were claimants in the aforesaid OP. The original petition was filed claiming compensation on the ground that a person named P.V. Narasimaha Rao, who was working as Assistant Regional Officer in AP Cooperative Central Bank Limited was travelling in a Jeep bearing No. AHK 5180 on National Highway No. 7 from Atmakur-Mahabubnagar. The 5th respondent in the OP named Telugu Ramulu drove the Jeep. The Jeep was hired by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent in the OP and it was insured with the Insurance Company. On hearing all the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs....
Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao and ors. Vs. Manohar Fuel Centre and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD638
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. A short question that fails for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether a document which has not been duly stamped or unstamped can be received in evidence even only for a limited purpose of looking at the signature of an attestor so as to ultimately show the manner in which the signatory signed on the document?2. Admittedly, the document sought to be introduced has no bearing on the merits of the case and is not being reliedupon for any other purposes except the limited purpose of proving the signature of the attestor to that document. Even then, can it be received in evidence is the question. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act (for brevity 'the Stamp Act') is the relevant Section for consideration in the context and the same may be extracted hereunder thus:'35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. :--No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consen...
P. Chandra Reddy and ors. Vs. the Government of A.P., Housing (Ch) Dep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD515
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition 23411 of 1999 are the members of the BHEL (MIG) Employees Co-Operative Society Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Society), which was registered under the provisions of the A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity the Act). The main objects of the society are to carry trade, building, buying and selling, hiring and letting and developing the land in accordance with the co-operative principles for the benefit of its members viz., to give loans to members for construction of new dwelling houses. The Managing Committee of the society was elected on 27.9.1998, that when the Managing Committee was not acting as per the bye-laws and in the interest of its members, some of the Members of the Society, have filed an application before the Deputy Registrar, Divisional Co-Operative officer, Hyderabad West - 4th respondent herein, which was registered as Arbitration Case No. 18 of 1999 and in ex...
J. Papa Rao Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD748; 2003(1)ALT357
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This case came up for hearing before us on 17-6-2002. The petitioner appeared in person. We heard him for some time but somehow he was not able to assist the Court. Therefore, he was asked to appoint a Counsel. The petitioner stated that he was not financially in a position to appoint a Counsel. We offered him the services of a Counsel sitting in the Court. The Counsel also agreed to appear for him without charging any fee, but, for reasons best known to the petitioner he did not accept the offer and made remarks about the Court stating that, 'This is a colonial attitude of this Court and he is not being allowed to argue.' We found the conduct and the assertions of the petitioner, prima facie, contemptuous and issued a notice to him. After this notice he filed an affidavit. Thereafter the case came up on 19-6-2002. On 19th June, 2002 the Court passed the following order:'Counter has been filed. Let the office provide a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the respon...
Ganry's and Ganry's Colour Studio and Laboratory (P) Limited and Ors. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD321; 2002(5)ALT587; I(2004)BC288
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The judgment debtors in EANo. 109/1995 in EP No. 35/1994 in OS No. 954 of 1989 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the present appeal.2. It appears that the 1st respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed. Later, it filed EP No. 35/1994 for execution of the decree by sale of the suit scheduled property. In the auction, 2nd respondent became the highest bidder. But, she did not deposit 25 per cent of the auction amount as required under Order 21, Rules 84 to 86 CPC. Therefore, appellants-judgment debtors filed EA No. 109 of 1995 to set aside the sale. That application was rejected. Hence, the judgment debtors filed the present appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that it is mandatory under Order 21, Rules 84 to 86 CPC on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money into the Court forthwith, failing which the sale has to be...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mahaveer Pershad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP107; 2002(6)ALT360
T.Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 7 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1993passed by the learned 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 754 of 1983. The plaintiff is the first respondent and the defendants 2 to 6 are the respondents 2 to 6 herein. 2. The suit O.S. No. 754 of 1983 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, for recovery of possession thereof, for arrears of rent, and for profits. It was decreed declaring the right and title of the plaintiff; for consequential possession; and for mesne profits from 2-5-1982 onwards till the date of realisation, while denying the relief of recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff filed cross-objections as against that part of the decree whereunder the relief for arrears of rent was denied. 3. The factual matrix may be set forth at the outset thus : The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the northern portion of...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lunavathi Hariya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1792; 2003(2)ALD617
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This common order shall dispose of sixteen CMAs being CMA No. 1529 and other fifteen CMAs and five CRPs being CRP No. 2452 of 1999. These matters are filed by National Insurance Company Limited, Warangal Branch, aggrieved by the common order dated 11.4.1997 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal, in OP Nos. 272 of 1995 and batch and hence the common judgment. The parties are referred by their status before the Tribunal.2. The second respondent is owner of a private bus bearing No. AEO 4237. The bus was hired and owned by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). On 27.1.1995 the bus was involved in an accident while the same was driven by the first respondent and going from Venkirala Village to Warangal by reason of the bus hitting a culvert and falling into a trench. As a result of the accident seven persons died and eighteen persons suffered injuries. The claimants filed as many as thirty six petitions under...
Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)835; I(2003)DMC574
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 9 of 2002 arising out of Crime No. 42 of 2001 of Ramgopalpet Police Station.2. 2nd respondent gave a report to the Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet P.S., alleging that she was introduced to the 1st petitioner at a function on31.12.2000 (wrongly typed as 2001, in the F.I.R.) held in a hotel by her friends and gradually friendship grew between them, resulting their falling in love with each other and so they had on 1.5.2001 decided to marry, and started spending nights in hotels and were moving around as if they were husband and wife, and on one day when petitioners 3 and 4 (parents of 1st petitioner) were away from Hyderabad, she and 1st petitioner spent a whole night in the house of 1st petitioner, and on one occasion 4th petitioner (mother of 1st petitioner) presented diamond studded platinum tops, and even when the 1st petitioner went to East Africa on business trip he used to be in touch with her an...
Anita Vs. R. Rambilas
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003AP32; 2002(5)ALD502; 2002(5)ALT604; I(2003)DMC95
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The wife-appellant herein and the husband-respondent herein had filed OP No.259 of 1998 under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Secunderabad for dissolution of their marriage, which was solemnized on 14-6-1994 at Hyderabad according to Hindu Vedic Rites. After the said OP was filed, it was kept pending in the said Court for a period of six months for reconciliation. Thereafter the learned Judge recorded their statements on oath and finally the learned Judge dissolved the marriage of the parties by mutual consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The said OP was disposed of on 24-5-1999. After about six months of the decree in OP No.259 of 1998, the wife-appellant herein filed IA No.585 of 1999 in OP No.259 of 1998 for recalling /reviewing the decree passed in OP No.259 of 1998 on the ground that the consent to the petition was obtained by the husband-respondent herein by threat, undue influence and coercion.3. In...
Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and ors. Vs. Ch. V.V. Satyananrayan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD524; 2002(5)ALT613; [2003(96)FLR337]; (2003)ILLJ651AP
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. These two writ appeals by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.13726 and 13816 of 2001 dated 22-7-2002 respectively allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents who are the employees of the Port Trust declaring that the applications dated 14-3-2001 submitted by them seeking voluntary retirement stood withdrawn and consequently entitled to continue in service.2. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petitions.3. Both the petitioners are working in Visakhapatnam Port Trust. While the petitioner in WP No. 13726 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 1st petitioner) joined as Lineman in the Electrical Section on 9-3-1968, the petitioner in W.P.No. 13816 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 2nd petitioner) joined as Wire Splicer on 22-12-1971. As on 14-3-2001, when they had opted for voluntary retirement, the 1st petitioner was working as Crane Operator...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »