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.
A.C.M.L. Prasad and ors. Vs. Shaik Madar @ Shaik Lal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD390
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. Both these revisions can be disposed of by a common order. The revision petitions are filed by the landlord. The lower Court condoned the delay in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree dated 8-6-1990 in ATC No.9 of 1990 and dated 26-7-1991 in ATC No.4 of 1990, against the said orders, the present revisions are filed.2. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondent that under Section 16(2) of A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956, an appeal lies to the District Court and therefore the revision is not maintainable. He also submits that the present revisions filed under Section 115 of CPC are not maintainable in view of the amendments made to Civil Procedure Code.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner, however, submits that de hors the appeal provision, it is always open for this Court to entertain the revision when the order passed is without jurisdiction.4. I am afraid, I cannot accept the said contention. Section 16(2) of the Act, reads ...
A. Elizabeth Vs. N. Chittaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD680
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 5-1-2002 passed by the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Sccunderabad, refusing to register the appeal preferred against the order dated 17-10-2001 passed in O.S. (SR) No. 9688 of 2001 by the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Sccunderabad.2. The genesis of the case, in brief, is as under:3. The mother of the petitioner was residing in premises bearing No. 9-3-205, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad. The respondent filed R.C. No. 47 of 1992 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction of the petitioner's mother on various grounds. Through order dated 25-11-1994 the Additional Rent Controller directed eviction of the petitioner's mother. She filed R.A. No. 7 of 1995 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 25-1-2001, against which C.R.P'. No. 4161 of 1999 was filed in this Court. The revision was al...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vundralla Santosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC884; 2005ACJ653; 2005(1)ALD789
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is filed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vijayanagaram, in O.P. No. 456 of 2000, dated 23-4-2003. The 1st respondent submitted the claim petition alleging that the scooter bearing No. AP9/AD-1599 hit him from behind, when he was travelling on a bicycle and thereby sustained injuries. He claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. The scooter was driven by the 2nd respondent and is owned by the 3rd respondent. The Insurance Company, the appellant herein, was impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the OP. The owner and driver of the vehicle remained ex parte, and the matter was contested by the appellant alone.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.3. Before the Tribunal PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the 1st respondent, and RW-1 examined for the appellant herein. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked for the 1st respondent and Exs...
Amangenti Prameela and anr. Vs. P. Venkat Reddy (Died) by Lrs. and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD66; 2004(3)ALT218
ORDERL. Narashima Reddy, J.1. Petitioners filed O.S. No. 8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda for the relief of partition and separate possession. The trial of the suit was commenced. Petitioners closed their evidence and the evidence of defendants commenced. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.I. During the course of his cross-examination, it was elicited through him that a partition took place among various members of the family on 12.1.1980 and two sets of documents were executed evidencing the said partition. It was also elicited from him that one of the documents was kept with him and the other with one Mr. Pratap Reddy. He has not filed the document dated 12.1.1980.2. Petitioners got issued a notice to D.W.I calling upon him to produce the original of the document, dated 12.11.1980, before the Court. There was no response to this. Thereupon, the petitioners secured xerox copy of the document, dated 12.1.1980, which is said to be a partition deed. They fi...
Bondugula Samyuktha Devi Vs. T. Sreedhar Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC744; 2005ACJ170; 2004(3)ALD561; 2004(4)ALT143
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellant who filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-for the death of her eldest son in an accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent while driving the Jeep bearing No. APQ-4365 belonging to second respondent and insured with third respondent, examined herself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-21 in support of her case. First respondent, who filed a counter alleging that the deceased, but not he that was driving the Jeep at the time of accident, examined himself as R.W.2 and his wife as R.W.3 but did not adduce any documentary evidence on his behalf. Second respondent, the owner of Jeep involved in the accident and who is the husband of the appellant and who supported the case of appellant, examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exhibits B-1 to B-9. Third respondent who filed a counter putting appellant to proof of the allegations in the claim petition, did not adduce evidence e...
Mahenderkar Chandrasekhar and ors. Vs. Mahenderkar Nagamani Bai and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT633
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 9 of 1991 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet are the appellants in this second appeal. They have filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of a Will dated 06-09-1987 marked as Ex.A2, said to have been executed by one Amarnath. The suit was filed against the sole defendant, the first respondent herein, who is the mother of Amarnath and grand mother of the appellants.2. The case of the appellants was that late Amarnath is one of their paternal uncles and the suit schedule property was gifted to him by his paternal grand father. It was pleaded that late Amarnath was suffering from ill-health and they looked after him. It was contended that out of love and affection towards the appellants, Amarnath executed the Will in question.3. The first respondent resisted the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants. She pleaded that her son late Amarnath was suffering from m...
i. Vasamsetty Surya Rao and ors. Vs. Vasamsetty Durgayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT546
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs who filed the suit O.S. No. 826 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove the unauthorised and illegal construction made on the south-west corner of the plaint schedule land and also to grant a decree for delivery of the vacant possession of the plaint schedule land, which was in occupation of the defendants, after ejecting the defendants from the suit land.3. The said suit was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated 28-6-1996, against which, the defendants filed A.S. No. 90 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additio...
A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Simhadripuram Co-operat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD220; 2004(4)ALT587; 2004(3)ARBLR34(AP)
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 131 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge Court, Cuddapah filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the decree and judgment wherein the suit was decreed against the first defendant - Co-operative Society and the third defendant, the Paid Secretary while dismissing the suit against the President of the society second defendant on the ground that the Paid-Secretary is wholly responsible for the maintenance of the day-to-day affairs of the society basing on the bye-laws marked as Ex.B.1.2. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff-Corporation represented by its District Manager, Cuddapah appointed Simhadripuram Cooperative Marketing Society, Pulivendla on the recommendation of the District Collector, Cuddapah for supply of levy sugar to fair price shop dealers on commission basis. The duty of the Co-operative Society is to receive the levy sugar from the transport contractor and store the same in the godowns an...
S. Padmavathamma Vs. S. Sudha Rani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP309; 2004(3)ALD547; 2004(3)ALT213
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. When the revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS No. 82 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, wanted to examine her General Power of Attorney as a witness on her behalf, an objection was taken by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, that General Power of Attorney cannot give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff revision petitioner. By the order under revision, on the basis of the said objection, the Trial Court held that General Power of Attorney holder can appear as a witness only in his personal capacity but cannot appear as witness on behalf of the plaintiff, in the capacity of the plaintiff.2. The order under revision cannot be said to be erroneous because the Power of Attorney can speak about the facts which are within his personal knowledge. Since, the Power of Attorney is not a substitute for a party, he cannot speak about the facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the party concerned, who is...
M. Krishna Rangaiah Vs. General Manager, S.C. Railway and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD93; 2004(3)ALT168
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The decision in Arbitration Application No. 62 of 2002 is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for brevity) praying to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims raised by the petitioner. The claim itself arises out of the agreement entered by and between the petitioner and respondents dated 27-3-1997. The value of the work, according to the agreement is Rs. 4,19,641/- which was required to be completed within a period of six months. That a final bill was prepared by the Railways, which according to the petitioner is a defective one. He has alleged to have signed the final bill under protest.2. Be that as it may, the petitioner vide letter dated 31-12-2001 required the respondents to pay the alleged dues or in the alternative to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Clauses 63 and 64 of the Gene...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »