Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
C. Pandit Rao and ors. Vs. Vihwakarma Association (Sangam) Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD225
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 28-10-2003 passed in I.A. 382 of 2003 in O.S. No. 358 of 2000 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court) at Hyderabad, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and permitted the plaintiff to implead D. Mohan Rao and P. Brahma Chary as defendant Nos. 8 and 9 in the suit. 2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in O.S. No. 358 of 2000 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court) Hyderabad. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. He filed the suit for declaration that the trust deed dated 16-11-1996 is null and void. The petitioners-defendants filed written statementresisting the claim of the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the trust deed dated 16-10-1996 is null and v...
Lolapu Chinnanna Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hig ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)393
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appellant-accused preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by judgment dated 26.05.1997 in Sessions Case No. 103 of 1996 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Adilabad. 2. The appellant-accused was charged with offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act in Crime No. 38 of 1994 of Oala Police Station.3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as hereunder:The deceased by name Muthavva was the kept mistress of the accused and she was married to one Yellanna and she had divorced him and subsequent thereto she developed illicit intimacy with appellant-accused who gave shelter to her by providing a house to her at Suryapur. The deceased also gave birth to a male child through the accused and subsequent thereto, accused began suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and started abusing her. On 24.09.1994 at about 11-00 p.m., the accused came to t...
Shaikh KusrouddIn and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC197
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Private complaint filed by the second respondent for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 420, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, referred to the II Town Police Station, Nizamabad, for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate was registered as Crime No. 75 of 2001. This petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the complaint in this case was given after there was a divorce between the first petitioner and the second respondent, question of the petitioners committing the offences alleged cannot arise and, so, the FIR is liable to be quashed. According to him, after she is divorced by the first petitioner, the remedy of second respondent, if any, is to claim maintenance during the Iddat period, as per the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and th...
Golla Hanumanthu Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hig ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)430; 2004CriLJ4009; I(2005)DMC144
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, Saroornagar, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.182 of 1995, dated 24.04.1997.2. The Inspector of Police, Neredmet laid charge sheet against the appellant-accused in Crime No.42 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The story of the prosecution in nutshell is as hereunder:The deceased Padma, a native of Bajjipuram, Timmajipet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District was married to the accused five years back and was residing with him. But however, inasmuch as they had no issues at all, the appellant-accused started harassing her for not conceiving the children and also had been threatening that he would marry another woman for getting children, which made the deceased to take the same seriously. Prior to incident, the deceased and her husband came to Hyderabad from Thimmajipet Mandal...
Budumuru Vijayanandh Vs. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP35; 2004(5)ALD98; 2004(6)ALT813; II(2005)BC568
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 183 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) based on a promissory note. The petitioner filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note or any liability for the suit amount. The matter went into trial. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1382 of 2003 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act' for brevity), praying the trial Court to send the suit promissory note, written statement and vakalat to Handwriting Expert for comparison of signature of the petitioner and opinion of Expert. By impugned order dated 17.12.2003, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that there are no bonaf...
Gandeti Suryakantham W/O. Subbarao Peddapuram Mandal Vs. Gandeti Subba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP533; 2004(5)ALD553
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002, passed in AS No. 158 of 1999 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1999 passed in OS No. 47 of 1990 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, the 2nd defendant in the suit, preferred this Second Appeal. 2. The first respondent herein who was plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to him. The first and second defendants are parents and the while 3rd and 4th defendants were married prior to 1984. The 5th defendant is said to be the alleged creditor of 1st defendant father. It is stated that the first defendant was addicted to all vices as such started squandering away the joint family properties. While so, in July, 1987 the plaintiff divided in status and started requesting for partition and allotment of one share. It is stated that from July...
Konkimalla Venkata Suresh Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)19
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused, aggrieved by the judgment made by the Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam in S.T.C. No. 12 of 1996, dated 22-5-1997.2. The case of the prosecution is that the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Vijayawada filed charge sheet against the appellant-accused on the allegation that on 02-04-1993 at about 12-00 noon, the said Inspector along with his staff and mediators inspected M/s Sri Srinivasa General Merchants and found the appellant-accused in the shop and verified the stock register and compared the stocks with book balance and found that there is a variation in the stocks of rice of 40 quintals in 40 bags and it was also found that the appellant-accused was purchasing rice meant for 'Food For Work Programme' and also purchasing rice from non-trading rice mills and selling the same at higher rates and thus the appellant-accused had contravened the ...
S. Ismail and anr. Vs. Agraseni Chit Funds (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP33; 2004(5)ALD138; 2004(5)ALT212
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 16-3-2004, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, allowing the petition in E.P. No.111 of 2003 in OS No. 198 of 2002 filed under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of decretal amount by way of arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors, 1, 4 and 5.3. The Petitioners 1 and 2 are the judgment-debtors 4 and 5, the Respondent No.1 is the decree-holder and the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the judgment-debtors 1 to 3 respectively.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the E.P.5. The undisputed facts are that the judgment-debtors 4 and 5 were the guarantors to the principle debtor. The decree-holder, after obtaining a decree, filed the said E.P., seeking arrest of the principal-debtor including the judgment-debtors 4 and 5. The principal-debtor filed a counter-affidavit stating that he is a salaried person...
Avinash Constructions Rep. Prop. Sri P.V. Venugopal and Sri P.V. Venug ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALT242; IV(2004)BC527
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this revision petition is disposed of at this stage. 2. It appears that the present petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S.No.296 of 2004 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad. An application came to be filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. by the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 and 2 had already filed a caveat. Admittedly, the money is due to defendants 1 and 2 from defendant No.3. The learned Judge noted that a caveat had been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the defendants 1 and 2, but even then he did not think it proper to issue a notice to the caveators before ordering attachment and directing respondent No.3 to with hold the payment of Rs.8,96,000/- which they were holding and which was payable to respondents 1 and 2. The money was due to respondents 1 and 2 even according to the trial court. The learned judge observed that no relief was claimed a...
The District and Sessions Judge Vs. C. Srinivas,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)593
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This is a case referred to this Court by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, under Section 395(2) of Cr.P.C seeking necessary instructions and clarification as to whether Sessions Case Nos.37 and 53 of 2001 sent by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mahabubnagar, for registering them as regular Sessions Cases, as no offence was made out under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act'), can be registered by the regular Sessions Court or not.2. The above two cases were committed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, directly to the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Act, Mahabubnagar, and they were registered as Sessions Cases by the Court. Since it was found that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act was not made out, the Special...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »