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.
Ambati Sitaramayya Naidu and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD311; 2004(6)ALT577
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The two petitioners are residents of Narayanapuram Village in Dachepalli Mandal of Guntur District. They filed the instant writ petition praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, the second respondent herein, in not declaring Narayanapuram Village, hamlet of Nadikudi as a separate Gram Panchayat under Section 3 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) as illegal and unlawful. They also seek a direction to the second respondent forthwith to constitute Narayanapuram Gram Panchayat as a separate Gram Panchayat.2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. Narayanapuram is local area of Nadikudi, whose population is 12,674 as per 1991 census. Out of the same, the population of Narayanapuram is 7,276. The distance between the two places is 3.48 kilometers and Nallavagu separates the two villages. When there are floods, Nadikudi becomes inaccessible. As Narayanapuram is at a distance o...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Shakeel Pasha and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC531; 2006ACJ314; 2004(6)ALD747; 2004(6)ALT804
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad against the award and decree dated 11-2-2002 in OP No. 1326 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows :3. On 26-9-1998 at about 8.00 a.m., when the petitioner was going on cycle from Gadwal Center towards Hanmantekdi said and by the time he reached the road near Gadwal Saree Centre, Abids, an auto bearing Regn. No. IAP-28-T 262 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner from Hanmantekdi, side and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he underwent treatment as in-patient. The Police of Abids registered a case in Cr. No.281/98. On account of injuries sustained by the petitioner, he suffered severe pain and inconven...
Prathipati Subba Rao Vs. Union Bank of India, Pasumarru Branch and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD92
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The CMA and the two CR.Ps referred to above arise out of the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 20 of 1998 in OS No. 56 of 1980 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'SCJ'), Parchur.2. The relevant facts may, briefly, be stated as under:The 2nd respondent, Narra China Lingaiah and one Karumanchi Rattamma executed a deed of mortgage dated 25-8-1973, in favour of the 1st respondent, the Union Bank of India, Pasumarru Branch, Guntur District, to secure a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. As many as 5 Items of agricultural lands, situated in Gannavaram Village of Prakasam District, were mortgaged. Out of them, the land in Items 1 and 2 was owned by Karumanchi Rattamma and the other items of landed property were owned by Lingaiah. The deed of mortgage does not indicate as to whether the amount advanced by the 1st respondent was shared by the mortgagors. Since the amount was not paid, as stipulated under the mortgage deed, the 1st respondent filed OS No...
G. Hanumantha Rao Bros. and anr. Vs. Gaddam Lingaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)641; III(2005)BC538; [2005]123CompCas216(AP)
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The private complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioners and M. S. Ramarao under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken cognizance of only under section 138 of the Act by the learned Magistrate, while referring the complaint under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The police, after investigation, filed a final report stating that no case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. A protest petition in Crl. M. P. No. 1501 of 2003 filed by the first respondent seems to have been dismissed. This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings under section 138 of the Act against them.2. The case in brief of the first respondent is that the first petitioner firm is the dealer of the products of Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., of which the second petiti...
Mr. Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP95; 2004(6)ALD175; 2004(6)ALT111; 2004(5)CTC283
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court expressed the view that the judgment in B.Nookaraju v. M.S.N.Charities, : AIR1994AP334 needs reconsideration. It related to the interpretation of Clause (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. The question was framed as under:'Whether, against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code in respect of a claim or objection to the attachment of property, a regular appeal would lie as an appeal against the decree, or, a Miscellaneous Appeal against the order?'2. On a reference having been made, the matter is heard by this Full Bench. The facts, which gave rise to the filing of the C.R.P., may briefly be stated as under:3. Petitioner filed O.S.No.1 of 1998 against the 2nd respondent in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, for recovery of certain amount. He obtained an order of attachment before judgment, dated 21-1-1998, by filing an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.68,900/-. In E.P.N...
isukapalli Surya Rao Vs. State: Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)194
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T.S.N.Murthy, the Counsel representing the appellant/accused provided by way of legal aid and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. Isukapalli Surya Rao, accused in S.C.No.131 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry aggrieved by the judgment dated 04-12-2000 convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for an offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., had preferred the present appeal.3. Sri T.S.N.Murthy, learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused would submit that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available on record and P.W.1 is none other than the wife of the appellant/accused and in view of certain misunderstandings between the husband and wife, the wife unnecessarily had implicated the husband in the present false case. The learned Counsel also further elaborately argued relating to the findings recorded by the learned Judge on the aspect of r...
Nanik Ram Vs. Bavarlal (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD200
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has presented this L.R. petition in CRP No. 889 of 2002, contends that there is no period of limitation prescribed for bringing legal representatives in the revision. She placed reliance on the decision reported in Nathooram Kapoor v. E. Harbansilal Tuli, : AIR1982AP278 . The relevant portion at Paras 3 and 4 read as follows:'3. This petition for bringing on record legal representatives which appeared to be within small confines has latent wide dimensions and the learned Counsel on either side focused upon all possible facets touching the issue. As the center is upon Rule 19 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, it is necessary to extract the same.'19. Every application for making the legal representative or, as the case may be, the legal representatives of a deceased person party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the death of...
Rudramamba Mahila Dwacra Group and ors. Vs. Principal Secretary, Educa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD157
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. In all these writ petitions various DWCRA Groups (Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas) are petitioners. They assail the proceedings dated 30.6.2004 of the District Educational Officer (DEO), Warangal, whereby and whereunder as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies for Midday Meal Programme in the aided schools in the district with effect from 1.7.2004.2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that in November, 2002, the petitioners were selected as implementing agencies for Midday Meal Programme in various educational institutions including private aided schools in Warangal District and without any allegation against them, they were removed in unfair manner. They also allege that on 20.6.2004, the DEO issued a notice to the petitioners, requiring them to show-cause as to why they should not be discharged as implementing agencies with effect from 30.6.2004. Though they submitted exp...
Mandadi Krishna Reddy Vs. Guggula Sreenivas Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD638
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. Revision petitioner is the defendant in OS No. 31 of 2004 on the file of the Court of H-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed OS No. 31 of 2004 seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,77,500/- alleged to be due from the defendant. Whereas the Court fee payable on the plaint was Rs. 5,226/-, admittedly the plaintiff presented the plaint along with a Court Fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The plaint was presented on 7-5-1997 and the same was returned on 17-6-1999 granting seven days time for complying with the objections including the payment of deficit Court fee. The plaint was resubmitted on 13-2-2003 along with IA No. 571 of 2003 filed under Section 148 of C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of 1,329 days in resubmitting the plaint. The Counsel for the plaintiff who has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the said application stated that for want of certain information from the party, the plaint could not be resubmitted in time ...
Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunty Yashoda
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR344(AP)]
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court expressed the view that the judgment in B. Noorkaraju v. M.S.N. Charities, : AIR1994AP334 , needs reconsideration. It related to the interpretation of Clause (4) of Rule 58 of Order XXI, CPC. The question was framed as under'Whether, against an order passed under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code in respect of a claim or objection to the attachment of property, a regular appeal would lie as an appeal against the decree, or, a Miscellaneous Appeal against the order?'2. On a reference having been made, the matter is heard by this Full Bench, The facts, which gave rise to the filing of the CRP, may briefly be stated as under :Petitioner filed O.S. No. 1 of 1998 against the 2nd respondent in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Hazurnargar, for recovery of certain amount. He obtained an order of attachment before judgment dated 21.1.1998, by filing an application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, CPC. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 68,900/-....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »