Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Ureka Heat and Exchangers Limited Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Financial C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD478; 2004(4)ALT159; II(2004)BC492; [2005]128CompCas257(AP); 2005(1)CTLJ162(AP)
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the auction proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in pursuance of its advertisement dated 24-7-2002, and the consequent acceptance of the bid of the 2nd respondent of the industrial unit belonging to the petitioner, as illegal, contrary to Condition No. 29, stipulated in the tender form, and for consequential reliefs.2. The petitioner states that it had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8.42 lakhs for purchase of plant and machinery from the A.P. State Financial Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, before 1980, and thereafter a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs, for expansion, in September 1980. The petitioner claims that it had liquidated major portion of the loan and only a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was outstanding by the year 1980. It is alleged that the 1st respondent levied penal and compound interest without acceding to the request of t...
Rahimmunnisa Begum and ors. Vs. Mohd. Mohammadulla Khan Durrani (Died) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD511
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 112 of 1985 and petitioners in IA No. 21 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.2. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.3. The revision petitioners filed IA.No. 21 of 1998 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to order amendment of the plaint. The respondents opposed the amendment. The lower Court dismissed the petition through its order dated 10th September, 1999. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, preferred this revision questioning the validity and legality of the order of the lower Court.4. The point for consideration is: whether the amendment sought for in the plaint is permissible under law ?Point Answer:5. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 7-10-1992 after contest. The plaintiffs filed an appeal questioning the Preliminary...
M. Someswar Reddy Vs. Ajay Bhanu Vanamali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD741; III(2004)BC254
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These civil revision petitions are filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/2nd defendant in the respective suits, aggrieved by the orders made in the applications moved by the respective plaintiffs under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Order 21 Rule 46 of C.P.C., praying for attachment before judgment by issuing prohibitory order to the garnishee. The 1st defendant as G.P. agent of the 2nd defendant filed all the suits as summary suits for recovery of the respective amounts on the strength of the suit promissory notes.2. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner/2nd defendant would point out that prima facie, these orders impugned in the C.R.Ps. cannot be sustained for the reason that even as per the case of the respective plaintiffs, the suit promissory notes were not executed by the petitioner/2nd defendant, but it was pleaded that since the 1st defendant executed those promissory notes as G.P. agent, the 2nd defendant also is liable ...
Vaka Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Vallamreddy Venkata Subba Reddy (Died) by L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD43; 2004(4)ALT341
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-1-2000 of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in Small Causes Suit No. 67 of 1998.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the revision petition the first respondent died, therefore, Respondents 3 and 4 are brought on record as his Legal Representatives (L.Rs.).3. The revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,390/- towards maktha for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 over the lands cultivated by the first respondent with interest or to grant the same as damages for use and occupation of the land. The ancestors of the plaintiff endowed Ac.29-95 cents of land situated in S.No.223/2 of Karumanchi Village to Sri Sitaramaswamy Vari Devasthanam of Karavadi Village as a specific endowment. The plaintiff's father is one of the five trustees of the specific endowment and has got one-fourth share...
Bhagyanagar Metals Limited Vs. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD328; 2004(4)ALT104; 2004(2)ARBLR456(AP); [2004]52SCL665(AP)
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The applicant, namely M/s. Bhagyanagar Metals Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacture of various sizes of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled Cables (PDF Cables), has filed this application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') read with the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, praying the Court to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of disputes between them and the respondent, namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).2. The BSNL Headquarters at New Delhi floated Tenders for supply of various sizes of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled Cables (PIJF Cables). The applicant who submitted its Tender was found to be one of the highest bidders. Thereafter, in pursuance of the authorization given by the BSNL Headquarters, the Chief General Manager, Madhya Pradesh Telecom Circle, placed Purchase Orders for supply of various sizes of PIJF Cables, which the applicant supplied. It is the case ...
V. Bikshapati Reddy and ors. Vs. V. Satyamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD769; 2004(4)ALT415
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard, Sri Prabhakar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs and Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondents/respondents 5 to 8.2. The question in controversy raised by both the parties in the present civil revision petition is no doubt simple, but, however, the said question is one of general importance. Several factual details had been narrated by both the learned Counsel regarding the historical background of this litigation, prior LGC No. 33 of 1994 and LGC No. 176 of 1995 and the findings recorded therein and even in relation to the identity of the property and the survey numbers in relation to which the findings had been recorded in the aforesaid LGC's, the subject-matter of the present suit and also in reference to Survey No. 310, which is not the subject-matter of the present suit. All the factual details may not be relevant for the present purpose. In IA No. 3603 of 2002 in O.S. No 1224 o...
Mr. Gankidi Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs. Gankidi Venkata Ranga Reddy and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALT357
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant No.1 Gankidi Venkata Krishna Reddy who suffered a reversing judgment and decree in A.S.No.72 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Cum III Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar wherein the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1983 of 1991 on the file of Principal District Munsif at Karimnagar had been reversed is the appellant.2. The first respondent Gankidi Venkata Ranga Reddy, the father of the appellant-first defendant and also Gankidi Ravinder Reddy, the second defendant, as plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.1983 of 1991 on the file of Principal District Munsif for partition and separate possession for one third share in the plaint A, B and C Schedule properties, and the Court of first instance by judgment dated 14-11-1997 had dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff had carried the matter by way of an Appeal A.S.No.72 of 1997 on the file of Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate...
Mohammed Ikramul Quadir Vs. Mohammed Amaanul Quadir
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD176; 2004(5)ALT215
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order made in IA No. 2582 of 2003 in A.S. No. 471 of 2003 on the file of the m Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The application was moved by the respondent-petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunction. The said application was allowed, and aggrieved by the same; the present civil revision petition is filed. It is not in controversy that in a pending First Appeal, an application praying for relief of temporary injunction under Order 39, Section 151 of CPC was moved and as against this order, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC would He.3. Sri Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner made a request praying for permission to convert , the Civil Revision Petition into one of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.4. Sri Niranjan Reddy, ...
Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vs. Jumma Masjid Wakf and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD484; 2004(3)ALT191
D.S.R. Verma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment3. All these appeals are filed challenging the judgment, dated 26.9.2003, passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in CMA Nos. 295; 332, 335 and 350 of 2003.4. The brief facts of the cases are that the respondents in all the appeals are the owners of the buildings in Vijayawada city and they have been paying nominal rents. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') proposed to enhance the property tax of their buildings. Accordingly, it issued special notices on different dates to the owners, as envisaged under Section 220(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act'), which Act was adapted by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the proposed amendment, the owners filed (heir objections, which were treated as revisions before the Commissioner. As per Section 223(1), (2) and (3) of ...
Rao Rajgopal and anr. Vs. Jawahar Reddy, District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD752; 2004CriLJ2916
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The lands of the petitioners at Vakalapudi Village of Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, were acquitted by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for the purpose of establishing Pellotisation and Sponge Iron Plants by ESSAR Gujarat Limited, Kakinada through the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short 'APIIC'). An award was passed on 15-4-1991. The Land Acquisition Officer the 2nd respondent therein awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 63,000/-per acre to the petitioners. They did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act.2. Certain other lands were also acquired through the notification under which the lands of the petitioners were acquired. At the instance of the owners of some of the lands, the matter was referred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, under Section 18 of the Act. The said Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 63,000/- to Rs. 97,650/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »