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.
S. Ismaill Jabiulla Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC394; 2004(4)ALD450
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This CMA arises out of the order dated 15-9-2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in OAA No. 70 of 1994. This is the second round of adjudication in the matter.2. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that he holds a season ticket to travel from Hindupur to Anantapur. He alleged that he slipped down accidentally on 3-12-1993 from the train bearing No. 7086, at Anantapur Railway Station, when the train was about to halt. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, alleging that he sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of the right leg and left foot. The respondent disputed the claim of the appellant. Its main contention was that, as on the date of the accident, the provisions of the Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not provide for payment of any compensation for accidental fall.3. Through its judgment dated 20-12-1995, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and r...
State Bank of India Vs. Sri Muffar Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD92; 2004(6)ALT17
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two C.R.Ps., arise out of same set of facts and in the same proceedings. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 393 of 1976 in the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount covered by mortgage from the respondents. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 24-11-1976. Final decree was passed on 24-12-1980. The petitioner did not initiate execution proceedings immediately. It is stated that the respondents approached them for settlement. Ultimately, it filed E.P. No. 49 of 1990. The E.P. was dismissed for non-payment of batta on 9-8-1991.3. The petitioner filed E.A.(SR). No. 1960 of 1992, under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC, to set aside the order of dismissal for default. Since there was delay of 256 days in filing the application, it filed E.A. No. 59 of 1994 for condonation of delay. Through a common order dated 3-9-1996, the executing Court dismissed both the a...
S. Ismail Jabiulla S/O. S. Ahmed Saheb Vs. the General Manager, South ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ610; 2004(5)ALT143
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. arises out of the order dated 15-09-2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in O.A.A. No. 70 of 1994. This is the second round of adjudication in the matter.2. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that he holds a season ticket to travel from Hindupur to Anantapur. He alleged that he slipped down accidentally on 3-12-1993 from the train bearing No. 7086, at Anantapur Railway Station, when the train was about to halt. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, alleging that he sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of the right leg and left foot. The respondent disputed the claim of the appellant. Its main contention was that, as on the date of the accident, the provisions of the Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not provide for payment of any compensation for accidental fall.3. Through its judgment dated 20-12-1995, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the responden...
Kanna Lakshmi Narayana and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD865; 2004(5)ALT28
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1.On 19.1.2004, this petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as PIL after a similar petition (WP.Crl.Nos. 272-273 of 2003) filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.2004 since the petitioners expressed their wish to approach this Court. At the outset, it may be mentioned that incorrect statement was made before us on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had been directed by the Supreme Court to file the petition in this Court. It is not so recorded in the order of Supreme Court.2. The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in not conducting any investigation against Respondent No. 2, who, as on that date, was the Chief Minister of the State, on various allegations of corruption and abuse of his official position as Chief Minister of the State, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to d...
Chikkamma @ Parvathamma and anr. Vs. Yerriswamy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)193; I(2005)DMC8
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioners, who are the wife of and daughter of the 1st respondent, filed an M.C. under Section 125, Cr.P.C. seeking as maintenance of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- respectively per month from the 1st respondent. After contest by the 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 300/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to them and aggrieved by the direction to pay the maintenance from the date of order, but not from the date of petition, petitioners preferred a revision, which was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below were in error in awarding maintenance to the petitioners only from the date of order and not from the date of the filing of the petition, that too without recording any reasons, by ...
Dr. S. Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Vst Constructions and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD840
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Tr. Civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Hyderabad seeking transfer of the suit to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Secunderabad.2. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,59,000/- on the strength of various transactions. The second defendant filed written statement disputing the various assertions of the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by the second defendant is that several transactions referred to in the suit have taken place at Tarnaka, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Secunderabad and as such the Court, in which the suit is pending, does not have the territorial jurisdiction. The trial of the suit is yet to commence.3. Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the specific assertion on behalf of the principal ...
V. Krishna Murthy Vs. Veluru Venkatasubbaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD689; 2004(4)ALT777
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. These two Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree, dated 7.8.2000, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in A.S. No. 58 of 1998 and A.S. No. 126 of 1999, reversing the common judgment and decree, dated 27.3.1998, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, in O.S. No. 3 of 1993 which was filed for partition of 1/4th share of the suit property for plaintiff and the same was dismissed, and O.S.34 of 1994 which was filed by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 5th defendant/minor [in O.S. No. 3 of 1993) for declaration of title land for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, which was decreed.2. It is a dispute, between son on one hand and father, who died during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff, 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of 1st defendant, 4th defendant is the wife of 1st defendant, and 5th defendant is the son of 2nd defendant and grandson of 1st defendant 2nd defendant, on be...
Adhikarala Jagadeeswara Rao Vs. Gopala Krishna Transport and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD111
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.P. No. 718 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram.2. This appeal is filed by the claimant having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. His case was that he was working as a driver on a passenger bus bearing No. AP 35 T 3337, which was given on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. On 21.6.1997 while the bus was going with passengers at about 6.00 a.m., a lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 7074 came in the opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus near Dwarapudi Junction. As a result of the accident, the claimant (i.e.,) driver of the bus under hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. and the passengers travelling in his bus received injuries. As far as the claimant is concerned, he received fracture of femur on the right thigh and other simple injuries. Hence, he filed M.V.CP.No. 718 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rupees two lakhs by impleading the owner of the lorry, its insurer, owner of t...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suggu Venkata Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC755; 2005ACJ669
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent No. 1 filed O.P. No. 443 of 1993 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident that took place on 21.5.1993. The accident is said to have been caused on account of rash and negligent driving of an auto bearing No. ABV 2932, driven by respondent No. 2, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant. Through its Order, dated 2.6.1995, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in favour of the respondent No. 1 towards 'no fault liability'.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not taken into account the contributory negligence as well as the fact that the auto in question was insured only for business purpose. Learned counsel contends that once the vehicle was registered and insured as a goods vehicle, it ought not to have carried the passengers.3. Though respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are a...
Rajam Extractions Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director, V. Ramakrishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD80; 2004(6)ALT24
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Ms. V. Hima Bindu, the learned counsel representing the appellant. Though the respondent was served with notice, none represents the respondent. The present appeal is preferred by M/s Rajam Extractions Ltd., Penubaka, represented by its Executive Director aggrieved by the judgment in un-numbered suit (G.R.No.320, dated 15-02-2002) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The appellant-plaintiff company filed the said suit on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam against the respondent- defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,88,895/- which became due on account of dealings carried by the defendant with it. (Rs.93,371/- principal amount + Rs.95,524/- interest). The office had taken an objection on the aspect of limitation. 2. The learned Judge placing reliance on a decision reporte...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »