Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Surapuneni Rani Vs. Surapuneni Latha and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD631; 2004(4)ALT764
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In all these Transfer CMPs, the parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through common order.2. Petitioner in Tr.CM.P.Nos. 87, 89 and 90 of 2004 is M/s August Leo Granites Private Limited. In Tr.C.M.P.No. 86 of 2004, one Smt. Sumpuneni Rani is the petitioner. In all these matters, the various suits, referred to therein, are sought to be transferred to the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.3. Tr.C.M.P.No. 86 of 2004 is filed seeking transfer of O.S. No. 1756 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. This suit is filed for injunction in respect of office premises of the petitioner-company situated at Visakhapatnam. Tr.C.M.P.No. 87 of 2004 is filed seeking transfer of O.S.No. 663 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. This suit is said to have been filed seeking a permanent injunction, in respect of machinery belonging to the petitioner-company. Tr.C.M.P.No. 89 of 2004 is filed fo...
Ravi Raghuramayya Vs. Koneru Rama Tulasamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD35; 2004(4)ALT526
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Ravi Raghuramaiah, the unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the reversing judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 8/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 336/99 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, had preferred the present Second Appeal.2. Shri D.V. Sitaram Murthy, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the A.P. General Clauses Act with reference to service of quit notice by the Postman when the Postman was examined as P.W.2 and his evidence was on record.(2) Whether the Court below was justified in declaring Section 14 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as not mandatory.(3) Whether the landlady had not waived her right in view of the acceptance of amounts.The learned Counsel while elaborating...
V.P. Rama Rao Vs. District Co-operative Officer/Registrar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD701; 2004(3)ALT515; [2004(102)FLR718]
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for the 1st respondent and Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.2. The petitioner is a Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Co-operative Bank. By proceedings dated 11.6.2003 the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo listing out about 5 species of charges and called upon the petitioner to explain why an amount of Rs. 2.30 crores invested allegedly at the instance of the petitioner with certain other banks, could not be recovered from him together with interest and also why disciplinary action be not taken against him for the enumerated lapses. By another proceedings dated 1.7.2003, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension pending domestic enquiry, which was ordered by a resolution of the Bank dated 30.6.2003, for a period of three months, or the completion of...
Lao-cum-revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and ors. Vs. Mek ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP250; 2004(2)ALD451; 2004(2)ALT546
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The common question of law that arises for consideration in these matters is:'Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') when the assigned lands are resumed by the Government for a public purpose ?'2. A Full Bench of this Court is State of A.P. v. P. Peda Chinnayya, : 1997(1)ALT498 (FB), held:'Where the Government resorts to the provisions of the Act for acquisition of the patta lands without resorting to the terms of the grant for resumption, it is liable to pay compensation under the Act, but such compensation will be only the market value of the interest of the owner or the assignee of the land, subject to the clog. In such cases of acquisition, the claimant would also be entitled to consequential reliefs, such as those of solatium and interest etc., under the Act. In a case where the patta lands are resumed by the Government, the assignees cannot claim compensati...
Annapoorna Builders Vs. General Manager (Engineering), Hyderabad Metro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD705
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estates, construction and development. It has acquired an extent of 19,968 sq.yards of land in Sy.Nos. 214/1 to 214/9 of Begumpet with Municipal Nos. 6-3-1192/1/1 to 6-3-1192/1-20. It has constructed two commercial and one residential complexes in the said land on the strength of a building permissions accorded by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.2. The General Manager, Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the 1st respondent, served upon the petitioner, on 1-4-2003, a letter, stating that the Board proposes to lay a water supply line along the passage in the premises belonging to the petitioner up to a length of 400 feet, and that it involves road cutting at a width of 0.6 metres, and up to a depth of 1.2 metres. The petitioner was requested to accord permission to carry out the work. The petitioner objected to the same by addressing a letter on 3-4-2003 and refused to ...
G.V. Pratap Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD51; 2004(3)ALT601; IV(2004)BC328
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a special class contractor registered with the concerned authority, and acquired the eligibility to execute the civil contracts with the Government exceeding the value of Rs. 1 crore. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram, the 4th respondent, issued a tender notice dated 20-10-2001, inviting tenders for the work of construction of a reservoir across Dhara Kalava near Kithamurupeta Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East-Godavari District. The tender process comprised of two stages, namely, evaluation of technical bids and price bids. The price bids of tenderers who qualified in technical bids, are considered.2. Petitioner and various others submitted the tenders within the stipulated time and among them, four tenderers including the petitioner were qualified in the technical bid. The price bids were opened on 19-11-2001. One Mr.P.Ranga Raju-(L-1) quoted his offer at 31,23% less than the estimated value. The petitioner beca...
Suman Kumar and ors. Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD209; 2004(3)ALT406
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The issue that falls for adjudication in all the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence it is expedient to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common order.2. Petitioners who are all Engineering students are not promoted to the III year on the ground that they have not secured the required credits of 56 out of 84 total credits from the I year (regular and supplemental) and 1st semester of II year in terms of Regulation 6(iii) of Academic Regulations (for short 'the Regulations') effective from the academic year 1999-2000 and onwards, which is the subject-matter of controversy in all the writ petitions.3. It is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners who are admitted into various Engineering Courses in the colleges affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) for the academic year 2001-2002. The minimum academic requirements which a student has to satisfy to be promoted from n year to in year is stipulated in Regulation 6 which r...
Yatam Venkateswar and ors. Vs. Thurka Narsimha Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD314
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who seek to assail the orders in I.A. No. 371 of 2003 in A.S. No. 2 of 2000, dated 23-11-2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, dismissing their application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27(i)(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to receive the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1986-87, 1985-86, 1984-85, 1983-84, 1982-83, 1981-82, 1980-81, 1979-80, 1978-79, 1977-78, 1976-77, 1975-76, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, holding that the petitioners failed to satisfy that the Trial Court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted, if such evidence is not within the knowledge of the petitioners after exercise of due diligence and the Court requires for just decision.2. A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised h...
Venkata Subbamma Vs. Praneshachari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD767; 2004(3)ALT513
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.4.2003 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2003 in O.S. No. 98 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni dismissing the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 of C.P.C. seeking framing of an additional issue with regard to adverse possession in respect of suit schedule property.2. For convenience sake, the parties are being referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that he has been in possession and perfected the title by adverse possession. This aspect also is not in dispute. Evidence had been adduced by both sides. Written arguments have also been submitted to the Court. At that stage, on the ground that the revision is pending, the matter is being adjourned from time to time.3. The only point that falls for consideration is as to whether an additional issue can be framed in a suit for perm...
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Sowmya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC172; 2005ACJ546; 2004(4)ALD199; 2004(3)ALT361
C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- for the death of Lingayathi B. Devaraju (the deceased) i.e., husband of 1st Respondent and son of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, due to an accident that occurred on 7-7-1994 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 21-T-0286 on the ground that the deceased aged about 24 years, was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from agriculture and business. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the driver and owner of the lorry involved in the accident chose to remain ex parte both in the Tribunal and in this Court. Appellant who is the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident filed a counter contesting the petition. In support of their case, Respondents 1 to 3 examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced by the appellant.2. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal he...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »