Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Sri Rachamalla Nagi Reddy Vs. Sri Pasurula Naganna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP147; 2004(6)ALT220
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. The interesting question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is, as to whether the decree-holder, who obtained an order of attachment before judgment under Order-38 Rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and subsequently got the suit decreed in his favour is a secured creditor, as contemplated under Section 28(6) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder.3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the 'judgment-debtor and the decree-holder ' respectively.4. The facts that lead to the present controversy and which are not in dispute are as under:5. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money and obtained an order of attachment of properties of the petitioner before judgment under Order-38 Rule-5 of Code of Civil Procedure. Eventually, the suit was decreed in his favour and an execution petition had also been filed...
Macha Gangadhar S/O. Late M. Gangaram Vs. Macha Gangaram S/O. Late M. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP178; 2004(6)ALT593
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. When D.W.1 was being cross-examined respondent filed I.A. No. 201 of 2003 under Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 for further chief-examination to mark a document, which was allowed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since examination of the witness is not completed, question of his being recalling for further chief examination does not arise. It is his contention that the trial Court without keeping in view the fact that the document sought to be introduced in evidence through DW1 in chief examination was not even received into Court, was in error in allowing the petition to recall DW1 for purpose of marking the said document. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the respondent sought permission to recall him only to mark a document and since petitioner can cross-examine the witness no prejudice can be said to have caused to the revision p...
State of A.P. Vs. B. Venkatamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD605; 2004(6)ALT189
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The Appellant-State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Hyderabad is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents herein in O.S. No. 1486 of 1985 on the file of the II-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was filed for a declaration, declaring that the Plaintiffs 1 to 8 are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for consequential decree in their favour and against the defendant for a perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant and its subordinates from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs 1 to 8 over the plaint schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit by the judgment and decree dated 23-2-1994. Against which, the plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 44 of 1994 on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Lower Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1998 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs 1 ...
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. T. Anand Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)354; I(2005)DMC162
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Padmanabha Reddy.2. The factual matrix germane for appreciating the episode of the prosecution is as follows:Respondents A-l to A-4 were charged with the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. and A-2 was charged with the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A-2 died during the pendency of the appeal and hence the evidence so far as it relates to the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. needs no serious consideration at the hands of this Court. The prosecution had examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 17 and Exs. P-1 to P-11 were marked. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, on appreciation of evidence, recorded an order of acquittal by judgment dated 3.10.1996 and hence the State preferred the present appeal as against an order of acquittal.Submissions of Additional Public Prosecutor:3. The learned Additional Public Prosecu...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. V. Venudhar @ Venu, S/O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4364
P.S. Narayana, J.1. State had preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, dated 27-02-2003, in C.C. No. 370 of 1999. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.1, in fact, had identified the accused and on the mere fact that the recovery was not proved since P.Ws. 2 and 3 turned hostile, an acquittal cannot be recorded and hence, it is a fit case for admission. The Inspector of Police, Tirupathi filed a Charge-sheet against A1 and A2 in Crime No. 193 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code( for short 'IPC'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10-5-1999 at about 7.30 p.m. at State Bank of India Staff Training Centre, Tirupathi, two unknown persons came on a Luna Super vehicle and while the defacto complainant-P.W.1 was proceeding to her house, the pillion rider (A2) of the vehicle snatche...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. P. Yadagiri Rao @ Giri
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)369
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. The State had preferred the present appeal as against an order of acquittal made by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise cases, Rangareddy District in C.C. No. 821 of 2002, dated 01.04.2003. 3. The matter is coming up for admission.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out that Ex. P8 is the sale deed in favour of P.W.1 and though P.Ws. 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution by virtue of Exs. P8 and Ex.P9 the case of the prosecution can be believed and the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained.5. The case of the prosecution is that one Shivarama Krishna Society, H.M.T. Nagar, Nacharam is the owner of Plot Nos. 175/B, 190/B comprising of 600 yards and P.W.5 is the President of the said Society. Out of the same, one Bhaskar Rao purchased 300 yards in Plot No. 175/B and 196 yards in Plot No. 190/B in the year 1980. The remaining 104 yards...
The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Vs. Pe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)364
P.S. Narayana, J1. The State preferred the present appeal against an order of acquittal recorded in C.C. No. 112 of 2003, dated 25-08-2003 by the learned I-Additional Judicial I-Class Magistrate, Kadapa.2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the only ground on which, the evidence of P.W.2 was disbelieved is that he is a stock witness to CCS Police and this view is not the correct view in the light of the view expressed in KHUJJI ALIAS SURENDRA TIWARI V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, : 1991CriLJ2653 . Further, he would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 411 IPC. The respondents / accused are charged with the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.4. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is residing in upstairs and he own Bajaj motor cycle bearing No. AP04 C 3573 and that on 16-04-2003, he kept the said vehicle at Medical Agency and slept on the terrace a...
M. Srinivasa Charyulu S/O M.V.N. Charyulu and Vs. District Registrar ( ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP32; 2004(5)ALT804
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners herein have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.14-00 in Survey No.197 of Huzurnagar village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, from one Mr. Venkata Rangacharyulu and others for a consideration of Rs.3,332/-. They paid the stamp duty of Rs.380/- and the sale was registered under Document No.704/90, dated 19-6-1990 in Book No.1 at the office of the second respondent. By order in proceedings No.100/704/1990m dated 30-6-2003 the first respondent directed that the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.19,320/- towards the deficit stamp duty in respect of the said document on the ground that the market value shown in the document works out to Rs.1,69,400/- and that the stamp duty chargeable is Rs.18,640/- and the registration fee payable is Rs.1,100/-. This order is assailed in the present writ petition. This Court admitted the writ petition and passed orders of stay prohibiting further steps in the matter. The matter was finally heard on 30-7-2004 with the conse...
Gunda Koteswararao Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALT105
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Muniraja and Sri Ramakrishna, Counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. This application is moved under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The mother of Gunda Koteswararao, the appellant in the criminal appeal, Gunda Koteswaramma moved the present application praying for suspension of the execution of sentence imposed against the petitioner by judgment dated 05.07.2004 in S.C.No.47 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Tract Court), Ongole and release him on bail stating that the petitioner is confined in Central Prison, Rajahmundry. It is not in controversy that a prior application for similar relief in Crl.M.P.No.5045 of 2004 was moved on behalf of the petitioner-appellant-accused by Gunda Anjaneyulu, the father of the petitioner and in the said Crl.M.P.No.5045 of 2004, on 12.0...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. Md. Jahangeer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD295
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This CRP, is filed against the order, dated 20-1-2004, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, in E.P. No. 60 of 2003 in O.S. No. 31 of 1993.2. At the stage of admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, the learned Counsel.3. Extensive arguments are advanced by Sri K. Harinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for respondents.4. Respondents 1 to 15 are the employees of A.P.S.R.T.C., at Wanaparthy Depot. They are said to have secured loans from M/s. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Limited, the 16th respondent herein, for purchase of some consumer durables. When they expected that their employer, the petitioner herein, is going to effect deductions from their salaries, for repayment of the loans to the 16th respondent, they filed O.S. No. 31 of 1993, for a declaration that the petitioner is not entitled to effect...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »