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.
Khaja HabeebuddIn Vs. Md. Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD84; 2004(3)ALT51
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The 1st respondent filed OS No. 31 of 2001 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.2. Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 9 figured as defendants therein. The suit was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was a prior partition way back in the year 1957. The trial of the suit was commenced. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff- 1st respondent is said to have been closed. The petitioner is being examined as DW-1. During the course of his evidence, he sought to mark the two documents viz., the alleged agreement dated 15-7-1957 and alleged award dated 16-8-1957. The 1st respondent opposed the same on the ground that the documents, if taken on their face value constitute partition deeds and unless registered, cannot be accepted in evidence. Through its order dated 7.8.2003, the Trial Court has sustained the objection raised by the 1st res...
Yelka Ram Reddy and ors. Vs. Kancharla Indira and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD368; 2004(5)ALT48
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 51 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet for the relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property against the respondents. The respondents were served with notice and engaged Advocate. However, they did not file written statement for a very long time. After giving several opportunities, the Trial Court set them ex pane and passed an ex parte judgment and decree on 24.8.2001.2. The respondents filed I.A. No. 52 of 2002 under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A., it has stated that the second respondent has been suffering with the formation of stones in the kidneys and thereby, he could not contact the Advocate. It is stated that the 1st respondent being his wife was also busy in attending to him and the omission to appear before the Court on the relevant date was neither wilful nor wanton. The affidavit also discloses that they have filed ...
Asst. General Manager (Admn.), Hyderabad Engineering Industries Vs. Ch ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD720; 2004(2)ALD720; 2004(3)ALT467; 2004(3)ALT467; [2004(101)FLR839]; (2004)IILLJ793AP; (2004)IILLJ793SC
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the management questioning the finding of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 224 of 1991, dated 22-4-1994, as to invalidating the domestic enquiry conducted by the management on the preliminary issue.2. This Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in I.D. No. 224 of 1991 by an Order dated 1-6-1994 in W.P.M.P. No. 12357 of 1994 and the same was made absolute on 22-8-1994.3. The 2nd respondent-workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the termination of his services by the management on 1-10-1991. The Labour Court, as a preliminary issue, examined as to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court held that domestic enquiry conducted by the management was invalid, but permission was accorded to the management to adduce eviden...
Fishermen Co-operative Society Vs. Commissioner of Fisheries and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD726; 2004(2)ALT740
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kondair Village, Itkyal Mandal, filed Writ Petition No. 15562 of 2001 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of ndia, challenging the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents vide proceedings RC No. 506/12/2001, dated 13-6-2001 and the proceeding No. 669/E/1999, dated 30-6-2001 as illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 1982 Food and Agriculture Department (Fisheries), dated 5-6-1966.2. In order to consider the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 30-6-2001 on the file of the Assistant Director of Fisheries/Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Mahabubnagar, a look at the order is necessary. The order passed by the Assistant Director is itself explanatory. In the order, it is recited that the fishermen of Jinkalapally Village have submitted a fresh application for providing them membership in the appellant Fishermen ...
Ananthula Buchiramulu Vs. Sakinala Janaki Ramaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD730
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 16 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, against the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,85,042/-. He has also filed IA. No. 105 of 2002 under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC, for attaching the property indicated therein before judgment, alleging that the respondent is likely to dispose of the same to defeat the right of the petitioner under the decree that may be passed in the suit. The Trial Court rejected the I.A., through its orders dated 4-9-2002. Hence, this CRP.2. The petitioner contends that the respondent had 10% share in M/s. Ramalingeshwara Picture Palace, and he owes an amount of Rs. 6,85,042/-. In addition to pleading that the respondent is likely to dispose of the property, he filed an affidavit of the 3rd party also. Petitioner contends that unless the property referred to above is attached before judgment, the very decree may become futile.3. This Court ordered notice to the respondent. The notic...
K. Matura Bai and ors. Vs. A. Shiva Nageswar Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC592; 2006ACJ1341; 2004(3)ALD658; 2004(4)ALT304
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Since all the three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated .7.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OP No. 129 of 1996, they can be disposed of together.2. The second respondent/Insurer is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 3021/1999, the third respondent/APSRTC ('the Corporation' for brevity) is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1069/2000 and the claimants are the appellants in C.M.A. No. 2550/1999. The Insurer and the Corporation in the respective appeals are assailing the finding of the Tribunal below that the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In addition thereto, the Corporation is assailing the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, The claimants are questioning the inadequacy of the compensation.3. The claimant filed O.P. No. 129 of 1996 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of the Claimants 2 and 3 in a mot...
P. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Munna Lal (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD127; 2004(4)ALT639
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff being aggrieved of not being successful in toto in getting a decree for specific performance and being successful only to an extent of 1/6th share of executant of the agreement of sale, had preferred the present Second Appeal.2. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had raised the following substantial questions of law to be decided in the present Second Appeal:1. Can a third party claiming interest in the suit property, claim adjudication of rights in a suit for specific performance ?2. Whether the Courts below had arrived at the correct conclusion relating to the female heirs of late Kalika Pershad/respondents 10 to 14 and their entitlement to the respective shares in the estate of their deceased father Kalika Pershad in the absence of proof of devolution of the suit property as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?3. On whom does the burden lie in relation to the devolution of interest b...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Kavali Depot and ors. Vs. Bitragunta Srinivasul ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD388
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Though elaborate submissions were made by Sri Ravindranath Reddy, representing the petitioner, hereinafter in short referred to as 'employee' in C.R.P. Nos. 80 of 2004 and 6704 of 2003 and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu representing the Revision petitioner, the authorities of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' in short in C.R.P. No. 5645/ 2003, the question boils down to the limited extent 'Whether during the pendency of the Appeal A.S. No. 1/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, the interim order granted by this Court is to be continued or all these civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed'. In view of the subsequent events and in the light of the pendency of A.S. No. 1/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, C.R.Ps.5645/2003 and 6704/ 2003 virtually became infructuous. No doubt, I.A. No. 2/2004 was moved in the aforesaid Appeal, but in view of the urgency, the employee approached this Cou...
Dr. Mandakini Naik Vs. G.K. Naik and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP525; 2004(2)ALD732; 2004(3)ALT829
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. CRP No. 3982 of 2003 is preferred by the 6th Defendant in O.S. No. 821 of 1986 against the order of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 17-6-2003 refusing to receive two documents, which are described as Wills, in support of his evidence.2. CRP No. 4349 of 2003 is also filed by the 6th defendant against the order of the 11 Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 25-7-2003 in review petition covered by I.A. No. 788 of 2003 in O.S. No. 821 of 1986.3. The revision petitioner-6th defendant while getting herself examined as DW-2 in O.S. No. 821 of 1986 sought to mark two documents describing them as 'Wills'. The Lower Court passed order on 17th June, 2003 upholding the objection raised by the plaintiff and rejecting to receive those documents in evidence. Against the said order, she filed I.A. No. 788 of 2003 under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. before the lower Court requesting to review the said order. The lower Court after conside...
Adinarayana Vs. S. Gafoor Sab and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP377; 2004(2)ALD736; 2004(2)ALT780
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur in E.P. No. 99/95 in O.S. No. 46/92.2. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 46 of 1992. He filed E.P.No. 99 of 1995 for realization of the decretal amount through attachment and sale of the schedule property. At the time of filing the suit, the decree-holder filed I.A. No. 194 of 1992 and attachment before judgment was ordered on 5.3.1992 under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC. Subsequent to the decree, he filed E.P. No. 99 of 1995 in O.S. No. 46 of 1992 for attachment and sale of the schedule property. The judgment debtors (J.Drs.) resisted the execution petition contending that the schedule house was conveyed in favour of Tarimala Nabi Sab by way of a registered sale deed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur as per the orders in E.P. No. 119 of 1992 in O.S. No. 56 of 1992 dated 7.8.1993 and possession was also delivered on same day. The purch...