Andhra Pradesh Court October 2003 Judgments
Shanta Bai Vs. Trilok Chand and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD643; 2004(3)ALT694
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. SR No. 4409 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar at Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-2003 upholding the objection taken by the office relating to the payment of Court fee under Section 34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner submitted that in the plaint, the plaint schedule contains A, B and C schedule properties and the suit O.S. No. 484 of 1997, referred to in the plaint, relates to only the plaint-B schedule property. The learned Counsel submitted that the mere pleading that the plaintiff along with Defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit for delivery of possession after evicting the defendants in the said suit, would not in anyway alter the situation as far ...
Tag this Judgment!Sebbella Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Alias Baby Vs. State of A.P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)225; 2004CriLJ1107
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Bhargava Laxmi (the deceased), wife of the petitioner, committed suicide on 18-3-2000. In connection therewith a case in Crime No. 70 of 2000 was registered by IV Town Police Station of Visakhapatnam under Section 174, Cr. P.C. At the time of inquest police seized three suicide notes, one addressed to the petitioner, other addressed to the mother of the deceased and the third addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, left behind by the deceased. Subsequently, on a complaint given by the brother of the deceased alleging that suicide by the deceased was due to the harassment meted out to her by the petitioner and his mother, the section of law was altered to Section 306 of I.P.C. and after investigation police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and his mother (A-2), for offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C., which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 36/2000 on the file of the Court of the Ill-Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A...
Tag this Judgment!District Collector and anr. Vs. Kotagadda Sayed Mahaboob Basha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD605
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This LPA and contempt appeal have been filed against an order passed by learned Single Judge in C.C. No. 1300 of 1998. Learned Advocate-General submits that he had filed contempt appeal, but apprehending that the contempt appeal may not be maintainable in view of the fact that there has been no conviction in the contempt, therefore he has filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Both the appeals are therefore disposed of together without deciding as to whether a contempt appeal was maintainable or not. That question would remain open.2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the contempt case.3. An application for initiation of contempt was filed being CC No. 1300 of 1998 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 2.2.2001 alleging non-compliance of the orders passed by the Court on 30.7.1997 in W.P. No. 17363 of 1997. It appears that the Government had issued a memo on 27.12.1996 directing the r...
Tag this Judgment!State of A.P. and ors. Vs. Paltati Sharavan Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD261; 2004(3)ALT445
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others are fighting this legal battle against the respondents by moving this batch of Review Applications as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.A. Nos. 19 of 2001 and Batch dated 24-8-2001 in C.S.No. 14/58.2. These Review Applications came up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J., and one of us (P,S. Narayana, J.), and the said Division Bench on 12-7-2002 made the following order:'At the stage of hearing this Review Application, across the Bar, it is brought to our notice that as provided under Order 47, Rule 5 of CPC, the Review Application is to be heard only by such of those Judges who are party to the decision, provided if one of them is retired or transferred and the other continues, if there is no embargo for the Judge who still continues to hear the Review Application.This Review Application is filed seeking to review the decision rendered...
Tag this Judgment!Kavuri Suwarna Bala Sundaram Vs. Karnati Poorna Chandra Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)592; II(2004)BC571; [2004]119CompCas156(AP); 2004CriLJ712
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The first respondent filed C. C. No. 201 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), against the petitioner in connection with the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 97,000 allegedly issued by him (petitioner).2. The petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 1612 of 2003 seeking an order of discharge mainly on the ground that there is a variation in the number of the cheque mentioned in the notice of dishonour with demand for payment and the complaint, and the cheque filed into court. The learned magistrate, by the order under revision, dismissed the said petition. Hence, this revision.3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the offence under Section 138 of the Act is a technical offence, a complainant who does not strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute cannot take shelter under a typographical error and s...
Tag this Judgment!Manga Ram Murthy and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD181
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The four petitioners in W.P. No. 22277 of 2003 are residents of Chandruni Cheruvu village. They filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents m not including their names in the voters' list of Chanaruni Cheruvu Water Users Association (WUA), Gudur, Warangal District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 ('the Act'). They also seek a consequential direction to include their names in the voters' list of Chandruni Cheruvu WUA, Gudur.2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. The petitioners claim that they are owners of agricultural lands in various survey numbers. They also claim that they are cultivating the land under the ayacut of Chandrum Cheruvu minor irrigation tank situated at Gudur village. They allege that they are members of the WUA. Since there was no election for WUA, a temporary panel of members constituted by the executive commi...
Tag this Judgment!A. Visweswara Rao Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC606; 2005ACJ1517; 2004(1)ALD442
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Manohar Reddy and Mrs. Ratnam, Counsel representing the respective parties.2. The civil revision petition is preferred as against an order dated 20-2-1998 made in O.P. No. 6/93 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur.3. The petitioner field the said O.P.No.6/93 with the following allegations:On 18-2-1992 at about 3-30 p.m., when the petitioner was going to attend the District Munsif Court, Dharmavaram on his vehicle bearing No. ADA 4025, suddenly a dog and a cow-dog chasing the cow on the road, came across before his vehicle and he averted and turned his vehicle to the left side and hit the compound wall and then the vehicle fell down. The petitioner escaped unhurt but the vehicle was badly damaged. The front portion of the vehicle including the mudguard, handle and the front headlight, shock-absorbers, front tyre, disk and other accessories were completely damaged beyond repairs.4. The respondent/United...
Tag this Judgment!Poosarla Visweswararao Bros. and Vuppala Nookayya Setty Vs. Vuppala No ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD818
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J. 1. These two revision petitions arose out of the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli, in E.P31 of 1984 and 32 of 1984 respectively in O.S.65 of 1976. The revision petitioner is one of the partners of the plaintiff-decree holder Firm and the respondent is the defendant in the suit and Judgment debtor in the execution petition. The Firm of the revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and the suit was decreed in its favour. Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed E.P.Nos. 31 of 1984 and 32 of 1984 for different reliefs for the purpose of realization of the decree amount These execution petitions were dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that they cannot be maintained by an individual partner when the suit was decreed in favour of the firm.2. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the lower Court preferred these two revision petitions questioning their validity and legality....
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Vs. Dasari Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC508; 2005ACJ825; 2004(3)ALD176; 2004(2)ALT392; [2004(101)FLR1070]
ORDERM. Narayana Reddy, J. 1. This judgment, in C.M.A. No. 1151 of 2001, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R-1 to R-5, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, questioning certain parts of the adjudications made by and set forth in para 3, infra.2. The Orders in the Cross-Objections filed in the CMA by the Cross-Objectors arise out of the same, being filed under Rule 22 of Order XLI, C.P.C. questioning certain parts of the said same Orders, set forth in para 3, infra.3. Orders, dated 23-4-2000, of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajahmundry, made in W.C. No. 37 of 1998, of his file.4. Perused the material papers of the Record.5. Arguments were heard of learned Counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the cross-objectors, corresponding to R-1 to R-4 in the C.M.A.6. The sole appellant in the CMA corresponds to R-1 in the Cross-Objections, and Opposite Party No. 2 in the said W.C. No. 37 of 199...
Tag this Judgment!Uppalapati Subrahmanyam Raju Vs. Uppalapati Sanyasi Satya Venkata Appa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD550
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The revision petitioner aggrieved by the order made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram dated 18-7-2003 in F.D.I.A. No. 572 of 2002 in O.S. No. 17 of 1997, had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts in brief are as hereunder:3. The revision petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 17 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share praying for the division of properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram had decreed the suit on 26.4.2002. The revision petitioner, as plaintiff aggrieved by the fact that the relief of mesne profits had not been granted, preferred A.S. No. 1991 of 2002 on the file of this Court and the same is pending disposal. In the said appeal, in C.M.P. No. 20657 of 2002, initially interim stay of passing of final decree w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »