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.
Kota Hariprasad, S/O Abaddaiah, Parchur Gram Panchayat Vs. Legadapati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD133; 2004(5)ALT185
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a writ appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 7822 of 2002. 2. The appellant's election as Sarpanch of Parchur Gram Panchayat was challenged by the 1st respondent herein in an election petition before the Election Tribunal-cum-Prinicipal Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. The elected appellant filed an application for dismissing the election petition on various grounds. The only ground which was agitated before the learned single Judge and which has been agitated before us was that the election petition was not verified in terms of Order 6, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Election Tribunal allowed the application. That order was challenged by way of writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court reversed the order of the Election Tribunal and gave liberty to the 1st respondent to take steps for rectification of the defects. The defect which is the subject matter of contro...
Mohd. QutubuddIn Vs. M. Malla Reddy (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD77
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Tr. civil miscellaneous petition is filed seeking transfer of O.S. No. 71 of 1995 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella to the Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad to be tried along with O.S. No. 122 of 2003 pending in that Tribunal.2. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 71 of 1995 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against the petitioner (Defendant No. 3) and Respondents 8 to 14 herein for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of Ac.2.31 guntas of land in Survey No. 242 of Dhobipet, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner contends that the property, which is the subject-matter of that suit, belongs to the Wakf and with the constitution of the Wakf Tribunal, under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), it is to be transferred to the Tribunal. A further contention is raised to the effect that the Mutavalli of the Wakf viz., Shabbir, the younger brother of the petitioner herein, filed O.S. No. 122 of...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Ramachandra Naidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC892; 2006ACJ2435; 2004(5)ALD378
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is filed against the order, dated 16-3-2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in IA No. 1807 of 2003 in O.P. No. 257 of 2003.2. Respondents 3 and 4 filed the O.P., claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as compensation, for the death of their four years son, in an accident that occurred on 26-12-2002, involving vehicle bearing No. AP-03-U-4177. They also filed I.A. No. 1807 of 2003 for awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, towards 'no fault liability', under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), pending adjudication to the O.P. The appellant, Insurance Company, resisted the application on the ground that the bus involved in the accident, though insured with it, was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C.-2nd respondent herein, and in that view of the matter, neither the owner of the vehicle nor its Insurance Company, can be held liable to pay any amount including the one towards 'no fault liability'. ...
Andhra Bank Vs. Vattikuti Sreemannarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP108; 2004(5)ALD111; 2004(6)ALT11; I(2005)BC294; [2005]128CompCas665(AP); 2005(1)CTLJ519(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Andhra Bank against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.1984 passed by the I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dismissing the suit being O.S. No.497 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 1,14,2747-. The parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. Detailed facts are not necessary to be mentioned as the controversy is in a short compass. Defendants were running business in Abkari and the bank had sanctioned a loan facility of Rs.69,000/- in their favour. Defendants 2, 6 and 8 had deposited title deeds on 3.10.1978 with Huzurnagar's Branch of the Bank. By this, an equitable mortgage was created in favour of the bank. Defendants 1 to 7 also executed a pronote on 29.9.1978 in favour of the bank. Certain other documents were also executed, but the loan was not repaid and the bank filed the suit. Execution of the documents was admitted, but it was denied that the amounts were received. The main defence which was taken by the defenda...
J. Ramalakshmi Vs. M.V.R.K. Mutyalu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD284
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. A short but important question falls for consideration in this revision viz., whether it is permissible for depositing of general stamp under Rule 85 of Order XXI C.P.C. beyond the time stipulated therein.2. The respondent filed O.S. No. 73 of 1990 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- with interest. The amount was borrowed by the petitioner on the strength of mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 7.7.1997. Thereafter, final decree was passed on 5.3.1999. Since the petitioner did not comply with the same, respondent filed E.P. No. 78 of 1999. The sale of the mortgaged property was conducted on 17.4.2002. The respondent also participated in the auction, with the permission of the Court, and emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/-.3. Since the respondent, the decree-holder, is the highest bidder, there was no necessity for him to deposit the bid amount, in view o...
P. Jayaramaiah Vs. Aragonda Munemma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP26; 2004(5)ALD489; 2004(6)ALT87
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No. 15 of 1977, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to half share in Plaint A and B-Schedule properties by virtue of gift deeds executed by the 1st defendant. In the alternative, he sought a declaration that he was entitled to half share in the said property as Class-I heir of deceased Rajappa under Hindu Succession Act. He also sought possession of his share.2. Plaintiff contended that one Ellappa had three sons; Munuswamy, Papaiah and Rajappa. Ellappa had two wives. Papaiah and Rajappa were sons of first wife whereas Munuswamy was the son of second wife. Munuswamy, the first wife's son was not being treated properly by his stepmother, therefore he separated from the family, which was a joint family till then. Ellappa and his two other sons Papaiah and Rajappa continued to live together. Plaintiff is the son of Munuswamy. Ellappa died in the year 1938. After his death, Papaiah and Rajappa continued to live as mem...
S. Venugopal Vs. Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD315; 2004(5)ALT332
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 3-7-2004 under which the first respondent did not allow the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his claim and an order was passed rejecting his request.2. According to the petitioner, the property against which the second respondent-Bank is proceeding for recovery of certain dues from its debtors, belongs to the petitioner and his signatures were obtained by his maternal uncle as if he signed as a major, mortgaging the said property, though in fact the petitioner was only a minor as on that date. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no valid mortgage and in order to prove his case, he filed a claim petition in E.A. No. 1 of 2004 in E.P. No. 559 of 1999 as he proposed to adduce evidence in support of his case. But, the first respondent did not allow him and rejected his claim to adduce evidence. Therefore, the present writ petition.3. ...
Dr. B. Vamsi Pavani and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD751
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The subject-matter of these writ petitions relate to admission into Post-Graduate Courses in Dental Sciences.Writ Petition No. 12486 of 1999:The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though she secured highest marks in the common merit list from Andhra University local area for admission to MDS Course, she could not get the admission, while respondent Nos.4 and 5 who secured lesser rank got seats in MDS Course from the local areas of Osmania and Sri Venkateswara University in Dental College, a State wide institution on the basis of class reservation. Hence, she questioned the vires of Rule 4 of the A.P. Regulation of Admission to the MDS Course in the Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Dental Course Rules') providing reservation to the reserved categories speciality-wise on rotation basis by contending that the same is contrary to Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Devarakonda Raje...
Arredla Ram Reddy S/O. Malla Reddy, Vs. Arredla Alivelamma W/O. Buchi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD388
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.R.P. is filed against the order dated 7-5-2004 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Deverkonda, in I.A. No. 38 of 2004 in O.S. No. 18 of 2004.2. The respondent filed O.S. No. 18 of 2004 against the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Ac.2.30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 240/A of Mosangi Village, Gurrampod Mandal, Nalgonda District. She also filed I.A. No. 38 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features. Through the order under revision, the trial Court appointed a Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the only question that falls for consideration is, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the filing of the suit, and whether she is entitled for permanent injunction; and the question of noting down the physical features in such matters...
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Represented by Its General M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD9; 2004(5)ALT205
ORDERDharma Rao Elipe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 5.12.2002 in I.A. No. 515 of 2002 in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, wherein the Senior Civil Judge allowed the interlocutory application on the ground that there is a mistake which can be said that accidental omission or slip by which the claimant is being adversely affected and likely to deprived of the fruits of the decree in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 unless the same is rectified by amending the schedule of the decree in O.P. No. 25 of 1994. It is further observed that though the mistake is crept in the schedule is not due to any typographical mistake or any mistake of the Court, it is only due to the mistake of Land Acquision Officer and as such, in view of the decisions cited and in view of the law to rectify the said mistake by amending the schedule of the decree dated 22.3.2001 passed in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 in the interest of justice. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »