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.
Nitchenametla Subrayudu and anr. Vs. Nookala Subramanyam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD427; 2004(3)ALT5
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-11-2003, in A.S. No. 88 of 2002, passed by the II Additional District Judge at Proddatur, Kadapa District.2. By the said judgment, the lower Appellate Court after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 27-2-2001, in OS No. 446 of 1998, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same afresh giving liberty to the second plaintiff as well as third defendant to prove their will said to be in dispute.3. The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.5. The first plaintiff died on 30-9-2001 during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. Hence, for all purposes, it is only the second plaintiff who remains on record and the contesting plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interferin...
D. Sudershan and anr. Vs. Vangapally Venkata Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD528
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri D. Bhaskara Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents in the civil revision petition. CMP No. 1761 of 2004 was filed to vacate the interim stay granted in C.M.P. No. 28796 of 2003 in CRP No. 6516 of 2003, dated 12.12.2003. During the course of hearing of the vacate petition, both the learned Counsel made a request to dispose of the C.R.P. itself and hence the CRP is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.2. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the main suit, aggrieved by an order dated 12.11.2003 made in I.A. No. 155 of 2003 in OS No. 12 of 2001 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Metpalli preferred the present CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Sri K. Venunadhav, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 27.8.2001 made in I.A. No. 88 of 2001...
Vijayawada Bottlling Company Limited Vs. Employee Insurance Court and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD742; 2004(3)ALD742; [2004(102)FLR406]; (2004)IIILLJ245AP; (2004)IIILLJ245SC
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order dated 19.11.1998, passed in E.I. Case No. 42 of 1997 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad, wherein the learned Chairman dismissed the application, which was filed under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (for brevity the Act) praying to set aside the demand notice dated 9-6-1997.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. It has entrusted with the work of manufacturing of soft drinks and aerated water i.e., Thums up, Gold Spot etc., and accordingly, it engaged 120 workmen including casual and piece rate employees for the said purpose. It is submitted that for each shift the petitioner is able to produce 3,000 crates, as against the installed capacity of 6,000 crates. To encourage more production, the petitioner has introduced the payment known as 'Inani', whi...
C. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Chief Admini ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALT620; 2004(2)ARBLR300(AP)
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. In as much as the above two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common Judgment dated 28.11.2001 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, in O.S. No. 55 of 1994 and OP. No. 11 of 1999, they can be disposed of together.2. The unsuccessful first defendant-respondent is the revision petitioner. He was a contractor who entered into an agreement bearing No. 1/CE/C/SC/85 dated 18.06.1985 with the Union of India, the respondent herein, agreeing inter alia to complete the work within 12 months from the date of the acceptance letter dated 05.01.1985. However, he could not complete the work in time despite the extension of time, time and again, and, therefore, the contract was terminated on 26.04.1988 with the risk and costs of the contractor. The work having been entrusted to some other contractor that was completed by him on account of which the Union of India incurred higher rates of expenditure. In view of the dispute between the Union of India a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›