Andhra Pradesh Court January 2005 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. Kristappa Vs. K. Gopala Chari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD499; 2005(3)ALT7
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the appellant-fourth respondent, who seeks to assail the order dated 29-7-2004 passed in CMA No. 37 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, confirming the order and decretal order dated 16-10-2003 passed in I.A. No. 723 of 2001 in O.S. No. 247 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, allowing the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to punish the respondent therein for violation of the order passed in I.A. No. 740 of 1997.2. Originally the suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. In the main suit, the first respondent-plaintiff filed I.A. No. 740 of 1997 seeking to restrain the petitioner herein and three others, who are respondents therein from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. The Trial Cou...
Vajrala Ramesh and anr. Vs. Vajrala Narayana Setty and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD597; 2005(3)ALT1
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22-7-2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kurnool, rejecting the request of the petitioners herein to admit the alleged agreement, dated 19-2-1997, in evidence.3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The only question that falls for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether a document, which is the very basis of the filing of the suit, is a deed of partition or an agreement to partition and what is the effect of non-registration and insufficient stamp duty of such document?6. The suit is filed for specific performance of alleged agreement of partition deed, dated 19-12-1997, directing the defendants to execute a registered partition deed along with the plaintiffs, conveying the plaint schedule prop...
Shaik Abdul Haq Vs. Aiswarya Nilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD513; 2005(3)ALT676; IV(2005)BC70
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-5-2004, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, partly allowing the appeal in A.S. No. 23 of 2003, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 12-9-2002, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kurnool, in O.S. No. 1376 of 2001 and decreeing the suit with proportionate costs of Rs. 13,237/-.3. The petitioner is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff, the second, third and fourth respondents are the Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The only question that falls for consideration in the present civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is - as to whether a civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable a...
Komaramjeri Pedamunuswamy and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD212; 2005(4)ALT188
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The writ petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.A. No.3831/ 84 dated 30-8-1997 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust and contrary to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' and to direct the 2nd respondent to re-determine and pay the said amount to the petitioners and to pass such other suitable orders.2. Sri Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained for the reason that the view expressed by the 2nd respondent that Section 28-A of the Act is not applicable and cannot be invoked in the present case in view of the fact that L.G.O.P.No.287/88 was disposed of by the Lok Adalat following a different procedure and...
Edde. P. Rajeshwari Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT97
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is functioning as a fair price shop dealer of Guddelugulapally village, H/o Muddunur, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. The second respondent suspended her authorization through proceedings dated 25-11-2004. The basis for her suspension is that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi Mandal, the third respondent, had reported that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in the distribution of kerosene for the month of October 2004.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal, together with an application for stay, before the first respondent. Through an order dated 30-12-2004, the first respondent took the appeal on file and directed the second respondent to finalize the case within two weeks. He did not indicate as to whether any interim order is passed or not. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent proceeded as though the petitioner committed irregularities, without e...
P. Yeram Naidu Vs. Deputy Co-operative Registrar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD194; 2009(5)ALT43
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. P. Yerram Naidu, writ petitioner, had moved this Court questioning the surcharge order issued by 1st respondent in proceedings Rc.No.882/ 94-B, dated 31-12-1996 for surcharging an amount of Rs. 9,692/- from the petitioner along with interest which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to provide all the necessary documents to the petitioner on which the authorities relied and to pass such other suitable orders.2. Sri Siva Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would contend that the report was not placed before the General Body as per Section 51 of the Act and the said provision being, mandatory, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would submit that no doubt initially interim suspension was ...
Laxmi Construction Co. Vs. Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Office ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP199; 2005(2)ALD320
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Relief prayed for in the writ petition:M/s. Laxmi Construction Company, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Y. Gopal Reddy filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. CAN/SAO/I/Bills dated 27-2-1997, ordering recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and also further ordering recovery of an amount of Rs. 65,112/- from the bills of the petitioner company, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner-company and pass suitable orders.2. Impugned order:SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYFA&CAO;/C's Office,Secunderabad.No. CAN/SAO/I/Bills Dated 27-2-1997Dy.CE/C/GaGTL.Sub :-Recovery of Rs. 50,000/- towards Workman Compensation.Rs. 50,000/- is recovered from M/s. Lakshmi Construction Co. towards Workman Compensation, the same is recovered from th...
M. Yadamma Vs. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD165
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The writ petition is filed for a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for records in respect of Proceedings No.D5/3401/96 dated 20-11-1996 of the 1st respondent and the Proceedings No. NFC/P.A.IX/1(01)/4820/ 278(A) dated 13-12-1996 of the 2nd respondent and to declare the said proceedings of the 1st and the 2nd respondents as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under the 2nd respondent as Helper/Attender with all benefits and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The husband of the writ petitioner was working under the 2nd respondent as a Helper bearing E.C.No.3265 who died in harness on 10-2-1988. The husband of the petitioner belonged to Yerukula Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner got married and the marriage was ap...
Edde P. Rajeshwari Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD372
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is functioning as a fair price shop dealer of Guddelugulapally Village, H/o Muddunur, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. The second respondent suspended her authorization through proceedings dated 25.11.2004. The basis for her suspension is that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi Mandal, the third respondent, had reported that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in the distribution of kerosene for the month of October, 2004.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal, together with an application for stay, before the first respondent. Through an order dated 30.12.2004, the first respondent took the appeal on file and directed the second respondent to finalize the case within two weeks. He did not indicate as to whether any interim order is passed or not. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent proceeded as though the petitioner committed irregularities, without ...
Sri Shinde Enterprises Vs. Arastu Talimi Trust and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD239; 2005(2)ALT76
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. O.S. Nos. 108 of 1998 and 100 of 1999 were disposed of by the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its common award dated 2nd August, 2004. The common award has been challenged by way of two revisions. One challenging the award in O.S. No. 108 of 1998 and another challenging the award in O.S. No. 100 of 1999. There are common questions of law and fact, therefore, the revision petitions are being disposed of together.3. O.S. No. 108 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff seeking possession from defendant No. 1 and also for future compensation for holding over illegal use and occupation of the property beyond 14-10-1998 til! the delivery of possession.4. O.S. No. 100 of 1999 was filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 108 of 1998 seeking a direction to the defendants to execute and register lease deed for 31 years with necessary permission in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property and consequently a direction to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »