Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Yale Malleshappa and ors. Vs. Chinna Hotur Bale Eramma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD285; 2004(6)ALT565
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. Head both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 12-7-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Adoni, Kurnool District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 673 of 2004 in O.S. No. 282 of 2004, filed under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 16, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer by directing him to produce the original Adangal for the Faslis 1404 to 1413 pertaining to the suit schedule land bearing S.No. 447 of Madire Village.3. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.5. The short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is - as to whether a party to the suit can make an application under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon a person...
Guntupalli Ramalingeswara Rao Vs. Bhattala Veerabhadram
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD207; III(2005)BC8
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order-dated 15.4.2004 passed in I.A. No. 237 of 2004 in O.S. No. 56 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem by which the learned Senior Civil Judge issued conditional attachment.2. The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,49,710/-basing on the promissory notes executed by him on 15.4.2000 and 14.5.2000. He filed I.A. No. 237 of 2004 under Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking attachment from judgment of the petition schedule properties. The properties sought for attachment have been detailed in the schedule annexed to the said petition. He enclosed third party affidavits of K. Jayaramayya to the effect that the defendant is making arrangements to alienate his movable properties in his house and thereby trying to leave the jurisdiction of t...
Rajender Pershad and ors. Vs. Raja Ratan Gopal (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD218
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-8-2002 passed in LA .No. 1182 of 2000 in O.S. No. 544 of 1975 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, the plaintiffs have filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 544 of 1975. They filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.1.1974. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed on 26.12.1978. They preferred an appeal in CCCA No. 49 of 1979 and the said appeal came to be allowed decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by judgment dated 9.9.1986. The plaintiffs were required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 57,300/- with interest at 6% from 28.8.1974 within two months from the date of judgment and in the event of non-depositing of the amount within the stipulated period the appeal ...
ii Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Vs. State of A.P. Represented ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)625; 2005CriLJ1168
G. Bikshapathy J. 1. At the instance of the learned II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, the following reference is transmitted under Section 395 of Code of Criminal Procedure for decision of the High Court:'Competency of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to impose minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- as the case may be for the offence punishable under Section 8(b)(i) and (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in PANKAJBHAI NAGJIBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT (2001(1) A.L.T. (CRL.) 129 (S.C.) = 2001(1) supreme 124)'2. The facts leading to the reference are as follows:Accused in C.C. No. 813 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges under Section 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) and he was convicte...
Saranam Peda Appaiah Vs. S. Narasimha Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP189; 2004(5)ALD653; 2004(6)ALT237
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. The important question that arises for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is with regard to the interpretation of Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P. Act 21 of 1995. 2. Before we delve into the legal aspects of the case we shall refer to the facts of the case on hand.3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in O.S.NO. 19 of 2000 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated: 18.2.1997. The said agreement was drafted on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 100/-. Under the said agreement, an extent of Ac.6-95 cents of agricultural land was sought to be sold to the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 2,43,250/-. Out of the said amount, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the advance and balance was agreed to be paid on or before 20.3.1997. Since the transaction did not come through the plainti...
P. Narayana and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD859; 2004(6)ALT533
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners herein purchased house bearing Plot No. 7 (Premises Nos. 2-3-520/17 and 2-3-520/18) admeasuring 500 square yards in Survey Nos. 49, 50 and 51 of Bholakpur Village from one Smt. Manjula Devi Surana under registered sale deed dated 3.5.2003. This property originally was allotted by a Co-operative Society - DV Colony Co-operative Society (the Society, for short) to one Durga Singh, who sold to R. Kumar and R. Mallesh, who in turn sold the property to the vendors of the petitioners. The petitioners allege that the said property was in dilapidated condition and therefore they intended to construct residential building and that they made an application to second respondent after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Office of the District Collector, Hyderabad. They also allege that though the application was made on 19.11.2003, the second respondent neither approved nor rejected the plan within thirty days and therefore the petitioners commenced co...
Krebs Bio-chemicals Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Dr. R.T. Ravi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD430; [2005]123CompCas100(AP); (2005)3CompLJ269(AP)
Sri Bilal Nazki, J.C.M.A.No. 3633 OF 20031. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.24 of 2003 against an order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.261 of 2003.2. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents with the following prayer:'That the permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their employees, agents, members, men, and officers from causing obstruction of any sort to the plaintiff and their employees in removing the schedule mentioned property from factory premises of the first defendant situated at Prabhagiripatnam, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District.' 3. It appears that a status quo order had been passed when the respondents/defendants moved an application in I.A.No.261 of 2003. In this application, they prayed that the matter be referred to an arbitrator in view of the fact that the parties had an agreement, which provided for arbitration and the trial Court passed an order, accepting the...
In Re: Global Trust Bank Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD667; 2004(6)ALT390; I(2005)BC239; [2005]127CompCas604(AP); [2005]57SCL164(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 100 read with Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). The petitioner herein, namely, Global Trust Bank Limited (hereafter referred to as 'GTBL'), seeks the following prayers.(A) The utilization of share premium for making provisions for bad and doubtful debts/writing off irrecoverable bad debts as approved by the special resolution set out in Paragraph 13 with the consequential changes in the accounts of the company be confirmed effective 31st March, 2004.(B) The requirement to add the words 'and reduced' after the name of the company be dispensed with.(C) To this end all enquiries and directions necessary and proper be made and given.(D) The proposed Minute be approved;and(E) Such farther or other orders be passed in the premises as the Court shall deem fit.2. In a nutshell it is the case of petitioner that during the financial year 2001-2002 it was compelled to write off bad loans to the tune of Rs. 285.38...
A.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD788; 2004(6)ALT303
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3967 of 1989, dated 10.10.1996.2. The matter relates to levy of additional charges on the High Tension Consumers in pursuance of the Orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board in B.P. Ms. No. 607, dated 21.7.1981. Challenging the said additional charges by demand letter dated 14.12.1988, number of H.T. Consumers filed writ petitions before this Court.3. M/s Associated Cement Company Limited filed W.P. No. 2696 of 1989 questioning the levy of additional charges. The Company filed W.P. No. 5110 of 1988 seeking writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-Board from encashing bank guarantee issued in favour of the Board. The said W.P. No. 2696 of 1989 was allowed by the Division Bench by an Order dated 28.8.1996, setting aside the levy of additional charges, consequently W.P. No. 5110 of 1988 was dismissed as infructuous in view of the Order passed in W.P. No. ...
Pothuri Thulasidas Vs. Potru Nageswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP171; 2004(6)ALD376; 2004(6)ALT525
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.S.A., is filed against the judgment and Decree, dated 17.6.2002, passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, in A.S. No. 9 of 2002. The subject-matter of A.S. No. 9 of 2002 is an order passed in E.A. No. 494 of 2001 by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta. 2. The facts that gave rise to filing of the C.M.S.A., are as under:The appellant is the owner of a sawmill installed in his land at Chilakaluripeta. The same was leased to the respondent in the year 1983. Thereafter, disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant got issued notices terminating the lease. When he could not recover the possession, he filed O.S. No. 104 of 1990, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta, initially, for the relief of restraining the respondent, by way of a permanent injunction, from removing the machinery of saw-mill, its equipment, tools, the zinc sheets shed, or from replacing them with any other ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »