Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
Sri Harsha Constructions Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its General ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD649; 2006(1)ALT13; 2006(2)ARBLR244(AP)
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. Applicant seeks the appointment of a sole arbitrator in view of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the disputes between the parties inter se.2. Pursuant to tenders called for by the respondents for construction of new bridge of 9 x 18.3m (clear span) with PSC girders on permanent diversion at KM 257/26-34 with SKM and UPD stations on Vijayawada-Gudur section of South Central Railway, the applicant submitted its tender, and the respondents accepted the tender on 7-1-2004. The initial value of the work was Rs. 7,48,92,753/-. The work shall be completed within 165 days from the date of acceptance letter i.e., it shall be completed on or before 21-6-2005. An agreement to that effect was executed on 1-3-2004 in between the parties. During the execution of work, due to peculiar site conditions, according to the applicant, the scope of work was changed, on account of which certain additional works became necessary and the applic...
Linga Pentamma and ors. Vs. T. Jagadishwar Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT111
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court, Sri P.S. Narayana, by posing the following question to be considered:Whether Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 is mandatory or directory? 2. The same question was posed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.R.P. No. 142 of 2001 by referring the matter to a Division Bench. A Division Bench of this Court by relying on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.D. Thandani (Dead) by LRs. v. Arnavaz Rustom Printer : AIR2004AP280 , answered the reference by holding as follows:Rule 16 is nothing but an offshoot of Rule 5, wherein the procedure forgiving notice has been stipulated. Under those circumstances the reference does not require any further elaboration in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.D. Thandani's case (supra). Since Rule 16 of the Rent Control Rules is a Rule of Procedure which is prescribed under Rule 5, it automatically has to be ...
S. Singa Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Ramachandra Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD760
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, the Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Kodandarami Reddy, the Counsel representing the respondent.2. The matter is coming up for admission. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20-9-2005 and interim stay was granted for a limited period. In view of the fact that the Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff, the C.R.P. itself is being disposed of finally.3. The petitioners, the defendants in O.S. No. 141/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalle, filed LA. No. 284/ 2005 in O.S. No. 141/2002 for appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of measuring and locating S.No. 277 and suit schedule property as per boundaries with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Galiveedu and file his report along with sketch and photos if necessary, in the interest of justice. The said application was resisted by respondent - plaintiff by filing a counter and the learned Judge after reco...
Paras Ram Vishindas Rupani Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Bsnl)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD250
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-7-2005, passed in IA No. 258 of 2005 in OS No. 13517 of 2003, by the XIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, refusing to condone the delay of 48 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed in OS No. 1221 of 2000.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-plaintiff is not a Government company, and as such, it is not entitled to claim the benefit of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and if the general period of three years for filing the suit is taken, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff would be barred by limitation. The point of limitation being a question of law, the Court below ought to have decided the same, but by dismissing the application, it has committed an error, and he prayed that the impugned...
M. Chandrashekar Rao Vs. V. Kutamba Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1399
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the acquittal recorded by the V Matropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 737 of 1999, dated 13-1-2004 acquitting the respondent-accused.2. The appellant herein is the complainant and the first respondent herein is the accused in C.C. No. 737 of 1999 and therefore they will be referred hereinafter in this judgment as appellant and accused respectively.3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :The complainant filed complaint before the V Matropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the accused alleging that the accused was running Chit Fund Company in the name of Swapna Chits and Finance Private Limited at Ameerpet, Hyderabad in the name of his brother Sri V. Satyanarayana who is the Executive Director and one G. S. Reddy was the Managing Director and at the instance of the accused, the complainant joined as subscriber in various chits and when chit amounts were due in the above chits the accused took those amounts and fur...
Golden Granites, Maddipadu Mandal Vs. Collector and District Magistrat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD179
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. In these two writ petitions challenge is made to the order passed by the Collector and District Munsif, Prakasham District, Ongole on 9.10.2002 whereby and whereunder 'No Objection Certificate' granted in favour of the petitioners by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthi came to be cancelled. M/s Golden Granites represented by its Managing Partner-Manduva Venkata Rao is the petitioner in both the writ petitions.2. Since these two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Collector and District Munsif, Prakasham District, Ongole, they are disposed of under this common order.3. The disputes between the parties have a chequered career. Land bearing S.No. 55 admeasuring Ac.300.00 cents is situated in an Estate village. A suit being O.S.183 of 1932 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ongole came to be filed by Ramaswami Sarma, S/o Purushottam against his junior paternal uncle Chine Krishnaiah for partition and separate po...
Sreeram Rangaiah (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. Gajula Krisnaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD757; 2006(1)ALT186
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge Sri Justice J. Chelameswar for an authoritative pronouncement, having regard to the conflict situation arising in view of two decisions reported in L.I.C. of India v. T. Tirupathayya : AIR1963AP353 (D.B.) and Akula Rangappa v. Narayana Swamy : AIR1988AP314 on the question as to whether a succession certificate is absolutely necessary for laying execution by the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder.2. The few facts, as necessary for consideration of this case, are that the suit was filed for recovery of certain amounts from the respondent and the same was decreed. However, subsequent to passing of the decree, the plaintiff died. The petitioners herein, claiming to be the sons of the deceased plaintiff/decree-holder, filed the present execution which was contested, inter alia, on the ground that in the absence of succession certificate in their favour, no such applicatio...
Ramasinghu Buchanna and anr. Vs. Joint Sub-registrar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT97
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This case arises out of a reference made by a learned single Judge Sri Justice P.S. Narayana on the question as to whether the appeal filed by the revision petitioners can be maintainable de hors the proviso to Section 47-A(1) (sic. 47-A(2)) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the said provision is not valid.2. The above aspect is pre-based upon a submission made on behalf of the petitioners herein to the effect that the proviso to Section 47-A of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 1998 was struck down by this Court as arbitrary and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India in P. Laxmi Devi v. Government of A.P. and Ors. : AIR2001AP446 (D.B.). Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the proviso to Section 47-A(2) of the Act which runs on the same lines both in spirit and substance as that of the proviso to Section 47-A (1) of the Act, necessarily it has to be held as invalid following the ...
C. Pattabhirama Rao Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP173; 2006(2)ALT242
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Introductory facts: C. Pattabhirama Rao, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 434/88 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. The said Pattabhirama Rao, appellant/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit. The respondents herein, the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Syndicate Bank are shown as defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. The relief of recovery was prayed for as against the 1st respondent herein/1st defendant in the suit. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Ex.X-1 recorded findings that even on the strength of the Surveyor's report the relief cannot be granted and even otherwise Ex.A-1 Insurance policy is only a Fire policy and not Fire-A policy and hence the New India Assurance Company Limited cannot be f...
Pudi Appala Naidu and anr. Vs. Praveen Prakash and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT650; 2006CriLJ885
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioners along with 38 others filed W.P. No. 33276 of 1998 inter alia seeking a direction to the Collector, Visakhapatnam District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Mandal, not to dispossess them from their respective house, plots in S. No. 1/2 in the lay out plan approved under resolution No. 3-A dated 01-07-1970 of Yendada Gram Panchayat purchased by them under registered sale deeds from their vendor A. Radhakrishnamurthy and filed W.P.MP. No. 40900 of 1998 therein seeking a direction to the respondents in the writ petition not to dispossess them from their respective house plots pending disposal of the Writ Petition wherein a learned single Judge by his order dated 13-11 -1998, passed the following order:The learned Government Pleader for Assignments takes notice and requests two weeks time for filing counter.In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects, until further orders.which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »