Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Katipalli Yesamma W/O Peda Akkaiah, Katipalli Venkataiah, S/O Tirumala ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2069; 2004(4)ALD726; 2004(5)ALT222
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants, who are the wife and parents of Peda Akkaiah (the deceased) who died due to an accident that occurred on 13.4.1996, when he was traveling in the lorry bearing No. ADF 702 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, from the respondents, on the ground that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. First respondent filed a counter, putting the appellants to proof of the allegations in the petition and contending that since the lorry was insured with the second respondent, the compensation has payable to be paid by the second resondent only. Second respondent filed a counter putting the appellants to proof of the allegations in the petition. In support of their case, appellants examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 including the first appellant as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. First respondent did not adduce ...
Sun Techno Constructions (P) Ltd., Railway Contractors Vs. General Man ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD200; 2004(3)ALT382
ORDERDevinder Gupta, C.J. 1. The question required to be considered by me is, whether the respondents-Railways have failed to act as required under the procedure agreed to by the parties for appointment of arbitrators so as to enable the petitioner to seek appointment of a sole arbitrator by this Court.2. Admitted facts are that an agreement dated 6-9-1999 was entered into between the parties under which the petitioner was awarded by the Chief Engineer (Construction-I), South Central Railway the work in question the total value of which was estimated at Rs. 4,72,55,037.74.3. On 25th June, 2003 the petitioner submitted representation to the Railways making fifteen claims and simultaneously reserving its right to add/modify the claims, if necessary, at the time of signing of the final bill which was yet to be signed. On 9-9-2003, the Railways notified its decision on all the matters referred by the petitioner that the claims are not justified and are not acceptable. On 22-10-2003, the pe...
G. Loretta and ors. Vs. Gunkula Rathanamma (Died) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD862
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 28-7-2003 in IA No. 198 of 2003 in OS No. 16 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizambad District.2. The plaintiffs who are the petitioners in IA No. 198 of 2003 are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property. While the evidence of the plaintiffs was being recorded. IA No. 198 of 2003 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') was filed seeking amendment of the plaint by adding a further relief of cancellation of certain registered sale deeds. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that the suit was filed for partition of the ancestral joint family properties of the late husband of the 1st plaintiff. However during the cross-examination of PW1, the defendant suggested that some of the suit properties were alr...
D. Sambasiva Rao Chowdary Vs. R. Kamashastry and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD858
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2002 in IA No. 382 of 2002 in OS No. 5 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, wherein the Court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to survey and demarcate the suit schedule site with the help of the Mandal Surveyor.2. The 1st defendant who is the 1st respondent in I.A. No. 382 of 2002 is the Revision Petitioner.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the material on record.4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner as prayed for would enable the plaintiffs to collect evidence to substantiate suit claim and therefore the order under Revision is erroneous and liab...
Kella Sanyasappalanaidu Vs. Mahanti Pentayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALT428
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, the Counsel representing the revision petitioner. None represents the respondents though notices had been served on the respondents.2. On 3-1 -2003, this Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition initially granted interim stay for a period of four weeks and subsequent thereto on 9-1-2003, interim stay already granted was extended till further orders. The 1st petitioner-1st judgment debtor in E.A. No. 539 of 2002 in E.P. No. 102 of 2000 in O.S.No. 168 of 1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is the present revision petitioner.3. The application in E.A. No. 539 of 2002 was moved by the revision petitioner herein and another Thripuragiri Kannayya who is shown as respondent No. 3 but specified as not a necessary party in the present Civil Revision Petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein obtained a decree for declaration and for perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 168 of 1983 on the file of Principal Juni...
K. Yesamma and ors. Vs. D.V. Subbareddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: I(2007)ACC884
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants, who are the wife and parents of Peda Akkaiah (the deceased) who died due to an accident that occurred on 13.4.1996, when he was travelling in the lorry bearing No. ADF 702 belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, from the respondents, on the ground that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter, putting the appellants to proof of the allegations in the petition and contending that since the lorry was insured with respondent No. 2, the compensation payable has to be paid by the respondent No. 2 only. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter putting the appellants to proof of the allegations in the petition. In support of their case, appellants examined two witnesses as PWs. 1 and 2 including appellant No. 1 as PW 1 and marked Exhs. A1 to A5. Respondent No. 1 did not adduce any evidence either oral ...
Kanchupati Nageswara Rao Vs. Alla Anjaneya Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD196
G. Rohini, J.1. These two Appeals which arise out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-3-2004 in W.P. No. 2877 of 2004 are heard together and decided by this common judgment.2. The first respondent in both the Appeals - Alla Anjaneya Reddy filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification No. 15/SEC-B1/ 2004-9, dated 12-2-2004 issued by the State Election Commission and the consequential notice dated 13-2-2004 issued by the Mandal Development Officer, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District postponing the election to the 'Office of President, Tripuranthakam Mandal Parishad until further orders as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, thereby setting aside the notification dated 12-2-2004 and directing the State Election Commission to notify the election to the Office of the President, Tripuranthakam Mandal Parishad, Prakasam District and proceed with the same forthwith. Aggr...
Venkayala Chalamayya Vs. Commissioner and Appellate Authority U/S. 33 ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD254
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of first respondent in C.No. VSP/109/91, dated 28.1.1994, which was passed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act). The petitioner is the owner of vacant land in Visakhapatnam urban agglomeration. He filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, being C.C. Nos. 4649 and 6260 of 1976. Second respondent enquired into the same and issued a 'draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 1.12.1978. The petitioner submitted objections. A revised draft statement was issued on 1.12.1978 holding that the petitioner is in possession of excess vacant land of 3167 Sq.mts. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before first respondent contending that his third minor son is divided as on the date of the commencement of the Act and therefore, he should have allotted separate holding under the Act, that an extent of 4009 Sq.mts was exempted under Section 20 o...
Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Mill Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD559; 2004(4)ALT193; [2004]137STC228(AP)
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the controversy is with regard to the view taken by a two Members Bench of the Tribunal in Satyanamyana Raw and Boiled Rice Mitt v. State of A.P. (STAT), 34 APSTJ 153, on the question of determining the tax component on the sale of rice.2. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners stated that in order to work out sales tax component on the sale cost of rice, a formula is provided under Section 8A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') which is identical to Rule 6(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules. Learned Counsel also stated on earlier occasion, the validity of the formula as provided under the Act fell for consideration before this Court and this Court upheld the same.3. A Three Member Bench of the A.P. Sales Tax Tribunal followed the view taken by this Court and rendered a decision in Badrinadh Rice Mill and Anr. v. State of A.P. (STAT), 29 APSTJ 181. Since then, the department was following the decision of the...
D. Chinnagurappa Vs. K. Gopal Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)796; 2004CriLJ3158
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Criminal Revision case is filed by the defacto-complainant against the Judgment dated 3-1-2000 in SC & ST Sessions Case No.137 of 1998 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein accused No.1 i.e. respondent No.1 herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the offences in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. A1 is running a stone polishing factory at Ramapuram village. The defacto-complainant (P.W.1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prior to10-4-1998, P.W.1 and his wife (P.W.2) worked in the factory of A1 for some time. Thereafter, they left for Hyderabad. After six months, they returned back to their village Giddalur. On 10-4-1998, A1 took P.W.1 to his factory, where A1 to A4 wrongfully...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »