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.
Trilokchand JaIn Vs. Gurrapu Rajamouli and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD276; 2004(4)ALT605
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 151 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad against the petitioner (Defendant No. 1) and the second respondent (Defendant No. 2) for the relief of setting aside (obviously cancellation) the decree in O.S. No. 37 of 1982 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal or in the alternative to pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-with 25% interest. He has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from executing a registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein in respect of the said 'A' schedule property and certain other ancillary reliefs.2. The first respondent filed IA No. 140 of 2000 under Section-65 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to receive the xerox copy of an agreement of sale, dated 30.11.1979 as secondary evidence. The petitioner opposed the same. Through its order, dated 26.6.2000, the Trial Court allowe...
P. Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Smt. V. Sarala Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALT552
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The respondent in this appeal A.S. No. 176 of 2002 moved an application C.M.P. No. 4450 of 2004 in C.M.P. No. 1335 of 2002 in A.S. No. 176 of 2002 to vacate interim stay granted by this Court on 30-1-2002. This Court in C.M.P. No. 1335 of 2002 in A.S. No. 176 of 2002 made the following order:'Interim stay of passing of final decree alone. Rendition of accounts to go on.'In this case, both the Counsel while advancing arguments made a request to dispose of the main appeal itself and that's why the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2001 in O.S. No. 20 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, the defendants 1 to 10 in O.S. No. 20 of 2001 have preferred the present appeal. It is not in dispute that the matter was coming up for filing of the written statement and though several opportunities were given, since the written statement was not filed by the defendants, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nal...
Shaik Rahman Sahab (Died) by Lrs. Vs. AmarbIn Jaffer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD483
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The claimants in O.P. No. 915 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda filed this appeal aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the death of one Mohammad Jamal alias Shaik Bikkan Sab son of Shaik Rahman Saheb who died in a road accident that has taken place on 28-1-1990.2. The facts of the case are that one Md. Jamal son of the first claimant was working as a driver of Jeep APY 4844 and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/-apart from batta at the rate of Rs. 10-00 per day. On the fateful day while he was driving the Jeep and proceeding from Narasimhulagudem to Suryapet at about 7-30 p.m. a tourist bus bearing No. ATT 1797 came in the opposite direction with rash and negligent manner and hit the jeep. As a result the driver of the jeep died on the spot. While others travelling in the jeep received injuries. The dependants of the deceased filed this application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the ...
Smith Detection Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs. Electronics Corporation of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD878; 2004(3)ALT305
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. The Government of India's decision to implement a pilot project for installation of electronic truck/container scanning systems, in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai for use by the customs authorities, led to filing of this writ petition. The petitioner-Smiths Detection Asia Pacific Pte Limited which is having its parent company in Germany, engaged in the business of scanning systems filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus, certiorified mandamus or declaration, declaring:(a) That the memorandum of I understanding dated 11-8-2003 between the second respondent - Union of India and the first respondent - Electronics Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ECIL') and all consequential steps taken pursuant thereto, including the purchase order ECIL/SSD/R-6216/N/1176 dated 28-8-2003 issued by the first respondent in favour of the fifth respondent and any other purchase order issued by the first respondent in favour of the fifth...
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Gowthami Engineering Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD212; 2004(3)ALT322; 2004(2)ARBLR341(AP)
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-Central Warehousing Corporation, as part of its activity undertook construction of certain warehouses at Visakhapatnam in the year 1980. The contract was awarded to the respondent. An agreement dated 24-12-1981 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. In the matter of execution of the contract, some disputes arose. In terms of the contract, recourse was had to the Arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act')-2. The arbitrator gave an award on 28-4-1986, allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. He has also awarded interest at the rate of 10% p.a., from the date of award till the date of payment of the amounts awarded, or till the date of passing of decree by the Civil Court, in the event of proceedings being initiated for making the award, a rule of the Court.3. The petitioner filed O.P.242 of 1986 before I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 33 of the Act, to set as...
Y. Vijaya @ Viyaja Laxmi Vs. Bojja Baghaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP506; 2004(3)ALD283; 2004(4)ALT177
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money due on the basis of a bond said to have been executed by the respondent/defendant. During the course of inspection of the Trial Court by the District Judge, he observed that the suit document which should have been as a deed conveyance, is not so stamped, and so he directed the Trial Court to collect proper stamp duty and penalty thereon. The Trial Court on hearing the Counsel for the revision petitioner, issued a show-cause notice to the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 10,340/- i.e., Rs. 940/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 9,400/- towards ten times penalty at the pain of attachment of his property or his being sent to jail for default. Hence this revision questioning the said show-cause notice.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, relying on Peteti Subbarao v. Anumala Narendra, : (2002)10SCC427 , contended that the Court below erred in directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty as...
Kanduru Samasundaram Vs. B. Satyanarayana Agarwal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD442
M. Narayana Reddy, J.1. This Judgment, according to Law, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R-1 and R-2, under Section 104, C.P.C, read with Sub-rule (1) of Order XLIII thereof, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra.2. Judgment, dated 31-12-2002, of the Court of the Second Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (Executing Court), made in E.A. No. 273 of 2002, in E.P.No. 76 of 1997, in O.S. No. 31 of 1984, of its file, and the Decree of even date, that followed the same, therein.3. Perused the material papers of the Record.4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for both the parties.5. The sole appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, corresponds to the sole petitioner in the said E.A No. 273 of 2002, and the sole judgment debtor in the said E.P. No. 76 of 1997, both of the file of the said Executing Court, and the sole defendant in the said O.S. No. 31 of 1984, of the file of ...
Shaik Nurbi Vs. Pathan Mastanbi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD719; 2004(4)ALT624
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff who lost before both the Courts below.2. The point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the gift made by late Alikhan bequeathing entire property in favour of the defendants is valid and binding on the plaintiff3. In order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the suit.4. The plaintiff is the daughter of Pathan Alikhan who died intestate on 16-10-1981. First defendant is his wife 'and Defendants 2 to 5 are sons and Defendants 6 and 7 are his daughters. The plaintiff was born through the first wife of Alikhan namely, Tara Bi. Defendants 2 to 7 are the children born through his second wife, first defendant. The suit schedule properties belonged to Alikhan. After his death, first defendant is managing the properties. First defendant accounted for mesne profits only for one year and thereafter no acco...
Jaleel Ahmed Siddiqui Vs. Mohd. Mahmood Khan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD520
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16-4-1999, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 86 of 1995 and also I.A. No. 685 of 1995, which was filed seeking to amend the written statement, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.1.1995, passed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 2059 of 1986.2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.3. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for grant of mesne profits for the month of May, 1986, and also for future mesne profits from 1.6.1986 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit premises at Rs. 700/-per month.4. The factual matrix in a narrow compass is that the plaintiff is the owner of plaint schedule property bearing Nos. 22-8-45/3 and 4, which is subsequently renumbered as 22-8-60/17, sit...
Coramandal Traders Vs. Agricultural Market Committee and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD285; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)829
Bilal Nazki, J.1. All these petitions raise common question of law and fact and had been referred to this Bench by a Single Judge of this Court vide his order of reference dated 12.9.2002. The facts as averred in Criminal Petition No. 5302 of 2000 shall be taken for reference.2. The petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent filed a complaint in STC No. 101 of 1998 before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur under Sections 7, 23 and 25(2) of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the 1st respondent was that the petitioner was doing business in onions, which was a notified agricultural commodity in the notified area, without obtaining a licence from the 1st respondent-Market Committee as was required under the provisions of the Act. The filing of complaint was termed as gross abuse of process of law and was sought to be quashed on the ground that in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 997 dated 4.4.1979, onion was omit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »