Andhra Pradesh Court December 2004 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.
K.T. Afzal Khan, S/O Late K. Hyder Khan Vs. Kunsetty Ramesh Babu, S/O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD700; 2005(1)ALT696
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The revision petitioner assails the order dated 29.07.2004 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, in S.R.No.4609/2004 in I.A.No.717/2004 and I.A.No.718/2004 in O.S.No.12/2004. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge held that the document in question dated 06.09.1997 was a family arrangement.2. The facts germane in the context, which elucidate the baffling question about the nature of the document, need be set forth at the outset. The revision petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.12/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,74,767/-. According to him, he purchased the Cinema Hall of the fourth respondent in two moieties under two different sale deeds. The fact that the existence of tax arrears and the bank loan on the projector floated by the fourth respondent were concealed and not divulged to him at the time of the sale transaction; and that later the fourth ...
Gurana Asirinaidu Vs. Lenka Suryanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD713; 2005(1)ALT659
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff. He filed the suit - OS No. 30 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for recovery of a sum of No. 9,500/- stating that the respondents/defendant borrowed the said amount and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount on demand with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, but failed to pay the same. When the petitioner/plaintiff sought to mark the suit pro-note, the respondent/ defendant objected for the same on the ground that it was not properly stamped, and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. Admittedly, the suit document was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper worth No. 5-00. The learned Junior Civil Judge accepted the objection raised by the defendant and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to mark the disputed document as an exhibit on his behalf. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff.2. The contention of the petitioner/ plai...
Indian Airlines Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT598; [2005(106)FLR457]; (2005)IILLJ725AP
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order of the Employees Insurance Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal (E. I. Court), Hyderabad, in E. I. Case No. 9 of 1989, dated 29-7-1993 whereby and whereunder the learned E. I. Court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (fore brevity 'the Act').2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The appellant-Indian Airlines herein has three Divisions, namely Engineering Complex at Begumpet, Central Training Establishment at Balanagar and Booking Office at Saifabad in Hyderabad. The Indian Airlines has been maintaining these Divisions by engaging a contractor. However, they obtained licence under Factories Act, 1948 only for the Engineering Complex at Begumpet treating the said unit as factory area. The other two units are treated as non-factory area. It is the admitted case that since 1952 onwards the Indian Airlines is paying ESI contributions only in respect of Engineering Complex...
M. Kempaiah Vs. H. Ahalya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD273; 2005(2)ALT424
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-12-1996, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, decreeing the suit in OS.No. 8 of 1996, filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property bearing D.No. 1-6-745-F, with five rooms and electrical fittings, situated at Ward No. 1, Indira Nagar, Tirupati Town, and for a consequential direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff.3. The appellant is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff had purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 19-3-1985; that she constructed a house with five rooms in the said site and kept one room for her and let out the remaining rooms to othe...
Karveti Rathnamma and ors. Vs. New Sunbulk Carriers and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ614; 2005(2)ALD540; 2005(2)ALT122
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 27-06-2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Cuddapah (for brevity 'the Tribunal), allowing M.V.O.P.No. 609 of 2000 in part, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased by name Karreti Lakshmidevi in a road accident on 24-04-2000.3. The appellants are the claimants, the first respondent is the owner of the Tanker bearing No. MH. 04-8671 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellants, the first respondent and the second respondents will be referred to as 'the claimants, the owner of the Tanker and the Insurance Company' respectively.5. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 24-04-2000 at about 10.30 a.m., when the deceased was going along with her father on a two wheeler bearing Registration No. AP.04...
Sadhanapalli Bheemaraju and ors. Vs. Secretary, A.P. Legislative Assem ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD253; 2005(3)ALT578
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, declaring that Respondent No. 6 is not qualified to sit as a Member of Legislative Assembly in Andhra Pradesh as he does not possess the basic qualification prescribed under Clause 3(a) of Article 190 of the Constitution of India read with Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and consequently No. 38 Yellavaram (ST) Assembly Constituency has fallen vacant. Alternatively, the petitioners also seek a writ of quo warranto directing the sixth respondent to show under what authority he is occupying the seat as Member of the A.P. Legislative Assembly representing the 38th Yellavaram (ST) Constituency and for a further direction to the first respondent not to permit the sixth Respondent to function as Member of the A.P. Legislative Assembly.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass: The first petitioner claiming himself to be a tribal and resident of Mallavaram Mamilla Village which is a part of Yellavaram Assembly ...
New India Assurance Company Limited Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC727; IV(2005)ACC428; 2005ACJ2139; 2005(1)ALT634
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 18-11-2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Cuddapah (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), allowing the M.V.OP. No. 22 of 2001, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 475 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of one Palagiri Masthan Valli caused in a road accident on 22-10-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing NO.AP.03-T-3964 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent.3. The appellant is the insurance Company, the first and second respondents are the claimants and the third respondent is the owner of the lorry.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, the first and second respondents and the third respondent will be referred to as 'the Insurance Company, the claimants and the owner of the lorry' r...
Lanka Nirmala Devi and anr. Vs. V. Rama Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD666
T. Meena Kumari, J.1. The present appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decrees dated 4.9.1998 in O.S. Nos.28, 13 of 1996 and OS No.73 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed OS.No.28 of 1996 and the suits in OS Nos.13 of 1996 and 73 of 1997 have been decreed for partition of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.5.05 guntas only comprised in Survey No.4 situate at Torrur Village into four equal shares and declared that each plaintiff is entitled to have 1/4th share.2. Questioning the said common judgment, the present appeals have been filed. The appellants in AS.No.2404 of 1998 are Defendants 3 and 4 in OS.No.73 of 1997 and the first respondent is the plaintiff and Respondents 2 to 6 are Defendants 1, 2 and 5 to 7. The appellant in AS.No.763 of 1999 is the plaintiff in OS.No.28 of 1996 and the respondents are defendants in the said suit; whereas AS.No,9 of 1999 has been filed by ...
Basanthilal Vs. Omprakash
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD284; 2005(2)ALT620
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. This revision is directed by the landlord against the tenant seeking the premises under bona fide requirement for running the cloth business by his son.2. A brief resume of the background of facts is necessary in this case. Originally the landlord has sought for eviction of the tenant by presenting RC No. 368 of 1979 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The schedule premises bear Nos. 21-1-756 and 757 as mentioned in the schedule. The said eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation of non-residential premises for his son viz., Shiv Kumar @ Shankatial to carry on wholesale business and also on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for more than four months without any reasonable ground and also guilty of such acts of waste which have materially impaired with the value and utility of the suit premises.3. The same is resisted by the ...
D. China Mallaiah and ors. Vs. District Registrar, the Karimnagar Dist ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD721; 2005(2)ALT631
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri A. Sathyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners and Sri V. Gopal Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents. Sri Sathyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners would contend that as per the Government policy and the official instructions, loans obtained by the petitioners-farmers are exempted to an extent of Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel also would submit that despite the policy of the Central Government, all of a sudden the respondents 2 and 3 without any notice, had been regularly visiting the house of the petitioners with subordinates and were threatening the petitioners to repay the loans, otherwise they would attach the movable properties of the petitioners and such acts are not authorized by law.2. On the contrary, Sri. Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the averments made in the counter- affidavit and would submit that in view of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »