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.
Balaji Adithi Vs. Baddam Chandra Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD507; II(2004)BC533
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Respondent filed O.S. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda to recover certain amount from the petitioner. The trial of the suit is yet to commence.2. The respondent filed I.A. No. 516 of 2003 under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for impounding the document. According to him, the document is only a bond insufficiently stamped and not a promissory note. The petitioner resisted the application stating that the document answers the description of the promissory note and the question of collecting deficit stamp duty thereon does not arise. The Trial Court passed an order, dated 4-7-2003, treating the document as a bond/promissory note and permitted it to be impounded. The petitioner challenges the same.3. Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable, since Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code does not deal with the impo...
Dakkili Siva Narapa Reddy Vs. Gaddam Penchala Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP306; 2004(2)ALD786
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant and Sri Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff and also Cross-objector.2. Sri Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant-defendant had drawn the attention of this Court to the following substantial questions of law specified in Ground No. 9 (i) to (vii):(i) Whether the appellate Court below in granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondent herein for limited period against the Co-owner is bad in law or not?(ii) Whether the appellate Court is justified in granting permanent injunction to the respondent herein for a period of 3 years and also direct him to file a suit for declaration on the basis of possessory title having held in its finding that the respondent herein failed to show incidentally the right and title over the suit scheduled property and that he is in prima facie possession for succeeding the suit for permanen...
Aditya Electronics Vs. A.S. Impex Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP321; 2004(2)ALD779; 2004(4)ALT50; IV(2004)BC340
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 29.3.2003 in E.A. No. 12 of 2001 in E.P. No. 29 of 2001 in O.S. No. 201 of 2000. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the judgment debtors and Respondents No. 4 to 7 are the garnishees in E.P. No. 29 of 2001.2. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 201 of 2000 for recovery of money against the first respondent represented by Respondents No. 2 and 3. After appearance of the respondents a compromise decree was passed on 24.4.2001 through Lok Adalat and an Award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was passed directing to pay the amount due to the revision petitioner in 10 equal installments. Under the compromise decree the decree holder undertook to withdraw the complaints lodged in various Courts and the first judgment-debtor undertook to abide by the compromise decree. The judgment-d...
V. Bhaskar Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD341
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the notification, dated 7-9-2002, issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad inviting tenders in respect of 63 sand quarries in Adilabad District.2. When the writ petition came up for admission, extensive arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Advocate-General touching on the general aspects of the matter. Since the matter involves the grant of leases to quarry the sand, the effect of grant of such leases on the alarming depletion of the ground water level and non-compliance with the rules framed by the Government of A.P. under G.O. Ms. No. 1, dated 1-1-2001, were considered.3. Having regard to the general importance of the matter, several parties and Counsel intervened. Orders came to be passed from time to time, with the object of minimizing the adverse effect of sand mining on ground water levels, and to meet the requirements of sand, for the construction a...
Mohd. ZaheeruddIn and ors. Vs. Mohd. YousufuddIn Mansoor and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD534; 2004(2)ALT632
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The controversy between the parties is in relation to the stay of suit praying for the relief of perpetual injunction in relation to a Trade Mark Azam Jadi Beedi.2. Respondents in the civil revision petition moved C.M.P. No. 37/2004 in C.M.P. No. 19983/2003 in the present civil revision petition to vacate the interim suspension made in C.M.P.No. 19983/2003. At that stage, with the consent of both the Counsel, the civil revision petition itself was heard finally.3. The Revision petitioners/respondents in I.A. No. 163/2003 in O.S. No. 88/2001 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-Fast Track Court, as plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 88/2001 praying for the relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, employees or any one claiming under or through them from in any way manufacturing, selling, supplying and dealing with the plaintiffs proprietary Registered Trade Ma...
Panga Illayya Vs. Neethi Mahalakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD511; 2004(3)ALT816
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Balaji representing Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant, and Sri Krishnaiah, learned counsel representing the respondent.2. On 01-02-2002, the second appeal was admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law in ground Nos. 9 (1) to (3):1. Whether the lower appellate court can pass an order of eviction of the premises which described as thatched shed which comes under A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 under Section 2 (iii) by way of a regular suit?2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to entertain the suit, which was expressly barred by the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960?3. Whether ignoring the weight of evidence, proceedings on wrong or wrong premises of law or deriving such conclusions from the established facts as betray a lack of reasons and or objectivity would render the findings of the ...
Abdul Wahab Vs. Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP462; 2004(3)ALT473
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No. 24399 of 2002, is the owner and resident of the premises bearing No. 29-8-42, Chiluku Durgaiah street Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. He seeks a writ of mandamus against the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada i.e., the first respondent herein, directing it not to permit the 2nd respondent namely, to open Psychiatric Nursing Home (for short Nursing Home) in the neighboring premises 29-8-41/1 in the same street. According to him, the second respondent obtained a permission to construct residential premises, and in deviation of the same, he has constructed first and second floors, and thereafter established a Nursing home, in contravention of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to 'Act'), as extended to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, and of the Mental Health Act 1987 and the rules made there under.2. The second respondent was issued as many as three notices by the first respondent raising objec...
Pothapragada Sri Lakshmi Maruthi Hara Gopal Vs. P. Seshu Kumari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD832; 2004(3)ALT607; II(2004)DMC811
T. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 24.9.1999 made in O.P. No. 128 of 1996 dismissing the same.2. The appellant is the husband. He filed the above O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) and (i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.3. The brief averments in the O.P. are as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 6.3.1965 at Gudivada as per Hindu rites and custom and after the marriage they came down to Eluru to live with his aged parents. It is stated that out of the said wedlock they were blessed with a daughter and three sons. According to the appellant, after the marriage he found that the respondent was behaving in a highly violent manner and used to pick up quarrels and threaten him that she would kill herself by jumpi...
M. Gouri Devi and Company Vs. Gundla Ramesh Babu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD509; 2004(3)ALT356
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is a partnership firm. It claims to have purchased about Ac.3.00 of land in Survey Nos. 17 to 23 of Girmajipet revenue village, part of Warangal town, through a sale deed, dated 1.2.1960. The petitioner contends that it submitted a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). It also contends that initially an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed declaring that the petitioner holds land in excess of ceiling limits and after remand by this Court, a fresh order was passed on 24.4.1998 declaring that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits.2. The petitioner contends that in the year 2002, it came to know about the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal, dated 16.8.1999, whereunder, certain entries were made in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 20, 21 and 22. At the instance of the petitioner, the matter was taken up b...
B. Srikantha Reddy Vs. K. Mahesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC24; 2006ACJ323; 2004(5)ALD852; 2004(6)ALT408
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This judgment, accordingly to Law, rises out of a civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R1 and R2, under Section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth, in Para 2, infra.2. Order, dated 20-4-2002, of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad, made in WC No. 135 of 2001, of his file.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the contesting R.15. The sole appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal corresponds to the sole applicant in the said WC No. 135 of 2001, of the file of the said Commissioner. R1 and R2, herein correspond, respectively, to R1 and R.2 therein.6. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that WC, lest, so specified.7. The Sole applicant filed the said WC No. 135 of 2001, before the said Commissioner,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »