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.
Sri Victoria Aided Upper Primary School Society Vs. P. Jagannatha Rao ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT456
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, rightly interfered with the impugned order dated 01-12-2002 of the second respondent herein on the simple ground that it has not been preceded by an opportunity to the first respondent-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge came to the correct conclusion that the order dated 01-12-2002 has resulted in serious civil consequences so far as the first respondent-writ petitioner is concerned. The learned Single Judge took the view that the change of correspondentship could not have been approved in favour of the 5th respondent herein with effect from 20-10-2002, under the impugned order. The learned Single Judge did not express any opinion whatsoever with regard to claim of any of the parties for being appointed as correspondent of the institution in question. On the other hand the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the second respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education to afford an opportunit...
Rasool Bee Vs. Fathima Bee (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD362; 2004(2)ALT625
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet against the respondents herein for the relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs. The that of the suit commenced and the recording of the evidence was closed. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A. No. 423 of 2002 to reopen the evidence and IA No. 453 of 2002 to summon the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Noothankal as a witness. Both the IAs were allowed and the Mandal Revenue Inspector was examined as DW6. Through him, documents Exs.B-8 to B-13 were marked.2. Petitioner wanted to verify the correctness and gcnuinity of documents Exs.B-8 to B-13. She has submitted an application to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, to furnish certified copies of the said documents. She was replied through a letter dated 17-10-2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, slating that the record pertaining to the said documents is not traceable.3. Suspecting the genuinit...
B. Rama Swamy Vs. B. Ranga Swamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP280; 2004(2)ALD791; 2004(3)ALT1; 2004(2)ARBLR323(AP); [2004]55SCL561(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J 1. This matter comes before us as a result of the reference made by one of the' learned Single Judge.2. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y, Ratnakar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. It appears that the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged before the Civil Court in terms of Section 34 of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act')4. The petitioner who challenged the award did not present himself before the Lower Court on the date fixed. Therefore the application was dismissed by the Civil Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in LA. No. 2017/2002 seeking restoration of the earlier application being O.P. No. 1524/99. When this application was listed, again the petitioner absented himself and this application was also dismissed. The order passed in LA. No. 2017/2002 dismissing the application in default and the order passed in O.P. No. 1524/99 dismissing the...
Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. M.A. Razack
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD800
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The Government of A.P. represented by its Chief Secretary and two others, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 260 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in A.S. No. 115 of 1995 on the file of II Member Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below raising the following substantial question of law.'Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in view of the bar imposed by Section 46 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 when the property was declared as evacuee property ?'2. The learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling in all fairness had submitted that except the above substantial question of law, no other substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal and all other questions are only ancill...
M. Prabhakar Reddy Vs. Jagdish Prakash Vijayawargi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT319
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4-4-2003, passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, allowing the application I.A.No. 141 of 2003 in O.S.No. 135 of 2002, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, seeking his impleadment as defendant No. 6 to the suit.2. Respondent No. 1 filed suit O.S.No. 135 of 2002 for dissolution of partnership firm, namely respondent No. 6-Green Acres Poultry Farm and obtained an order of injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that the suit properties belong to the partnership firm, and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of one M. Prabhakar under registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., and therefore, he filed the present I.A. seeking his impleadment as a necessary and proper party to the said suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the court allowing t...
A. Venkatesan and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD422; 2004(3)ALT333
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle and is said to have undergone six months of imprisonment under the British Government, on that account. After independence, he was treated as a political sufferer. The District Collector, Chittoor, issued proceedings dated 23-12-1949 directing the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to assign an extent of Ac.10-20 cents of land in Sy.No. 498 of Avilala Village, Chandragiri Taluq. The Tahsildar complied with the same and issued 'D' form patta in favour of the 1st petitioner on 30-12-1949 in respect of the said land. The 1st petitioner was also presented 'Tamra Patra' on 24-3-1974 in recognition of his participation in the freedom struggle.2. A general condition used to be incorporated in the 'D' form pattas issued to political sufferers that the land assigned to them are heritable but not alienable. Representations were made by the freedom fighters to the effect that for variety of reasons they are not ab...
A. Govindraj Goud Vs. Vikranthi and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP395; 2004(3)ALD95
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri A Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.2. The only substantial question of law raised by Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant in the Second Appeal, Sri A. Govindraj Goud, the unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is as hereunder:'Whether there was service of notice in accordance with law under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act') on the appellant/ defendant?'3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also by the lower appellate Court. The learned Counsel also had traced the historical background and would maintain that in view of the compromise entered into in a prior litigation, the appellant as defendant had handed over possession of mulgie No. 2-101/8 and he is continuing in occupation of o...
Mohd. Afzal Vs. Shaik Habeeb and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD92
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Venkata Reddy representing Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, the Counsel for the appellant and Sri Murali Narayan Bung, the Counsel for the respondents-defendants.2. The unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by the judgments and decrees made in O.S. No. 5510 of 1987 dated 19-4-1995 on the, file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and A.S. No. 110 of 1995 dated 8-11-1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present second appeal. The following substantial questions of law are raised and are argued by the Counsel at length, which are referred to as hereunder:1. Whether the Courts below erred in law in dismissing a suit for injunction simplicitor on the ground of non-establishment of title?2. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not giving a finding on possession in a suit for injunction and merely dismissing such suits on the ground of failure to establish title?3. Whether the judgments of the...
Vaddi Raghava and anr. Vs. Nekkella Surya Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2007(1)ALT446
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful claimants are the appellants. They filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of late Vaddi Sutyanarayana on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 5 T 3355 and in view of the death of the deceased, the claimants who are the wife and son, suffered mentally and financially.2. For the default on the part of the claimants in paying the necessary batta, the claim was dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2 who had not been served. That order was set-aside subsequently on an application filed by the claimants and again for the default of the claimants in having not taken steps as against respondents 1 and 2, their claim was dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2.3. Enquiry had been conducted in the claim petition as against the insurer alone and at the culmination of the said enquiry, the Court below having been of the view that in the absence of the owner, the insurer cannot...
Eguvakammakandriga Gram Panchayat Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD299; 2004(2)ALT317
Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2688 of 2003, dated 7-8-2003. The learned Single Judge did not grant any relief whatsoever to the writ petitioner,2. The writ appellant is Eguvakamma Kandriga (for short 'E-Kandriga') Gram Panchayat, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chitoor District, represented by its Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayat had passed resolution proposing to construct its office building at Diguvakamma Kandriga (for short D-Kandriga'). On the representation made by some villagers, the 1st respondent-District Collector, Chittoor, passed orders dated 12-12-2002 directing the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to take up 'construction work for the office building of Eguvakamma Kandriga Gram Panchayat in the centrally located Eguvakamma Kandriga'.3. The case set up by the appellant is that D-Kandriga is a centrally located place in the Gram Panchayat and better suited for cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »