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.
Muddana Subba Reddy Vs. Muddana Kullayi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT18
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel who has lodged caveat.2. The matter is coming up for admission. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would contend that the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddutur had erred in granting the stay of operation of the decree and judgment made in O.S. No. 61 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, under Order 41, Rule 5 of C.P.C. The learned counsel would contend that the revision petitioner was successful in getting a decree for perpetual injunction and also mandatory injunction and without proper appreciation of the facts of the case, the learned Judge improperly exercised the discretion and granted stay and hence, the said order to be interfered with.3. Per contra, Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel who lodged the caveat, opposed the same on the ground that at paras 5 and 6, reas...
Pothyamsetti Satyanarayana Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ27
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a revision case filed by the accused in the S.C. No. 164 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, challenging the con victions and sentences imposed by the said Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1992.2. The revision petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in Crime No. 28 of 1991 of Rajavaram P.S. registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 509, IPC.3. This revision petition was allowed in part by this Court through the order dated 22-11-1996 acquitting the petitioners for the offence under Section 306, IPC and confirming their conviction for the offence under Section 509, IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 1997 before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court through its judgment dated 17-3-2004 set aside the order of this Court and...
Buddana Suryachandra Rao Vs. Pala Lakshmi Kanthamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD681
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether appeal Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is maintainable against the order issuing notice in IA filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code?2. The revision petitioner who is defendant in the suit filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to review the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem dated 12-7-2005 CMA No. 2/2005, whereunder learned Judge modified the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem dated 23-6-2005 in IA No. 856/2005 in OS No. 278/2005 directing that interim injunction orders dated 19-5-2005 shall continue till the disposal of said IA.3. The respondent-appellant-plaintiff filed suit OS No. 278/2005 before the Vacation Court for permanent injunction, in which, she obtained an ex parte injunction in IA No. 856/2005 on 19-5-2005 till 7-6-2005. On reopening ...
Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)840; I(2007)BC446; 2006CriLJ1
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. The complainant and the accused are same in both the cases. Both the cases relate to the transactions of a cheque, therefore, the appeal as well as the revision petition are clubbed and this common judgment is delivered.Crl. Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 :2. Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 is preferred by the complainant in C.C. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The appellant filed a private complaint against the first respondent (accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, through judgment dated 9-1-1997. The accused, being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, preferred Criminal Appeal No. ...
Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, I and Cad (Cad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD823; 2006(1)ALT661; (2006)IILLJ448AP; 2007(1)SLJ459(NULL)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.I agree with the conclusion reached.P.S. Narayana, J.1. I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or departmental enquiry in Service Jurisprudence need not be overemphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended Rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of 'cause to be drawn' and also incidentally Rule 21 of the 1991 Rule...
Smt. Bljanbee and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT479
R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. These four Writ Appeals are directed against the orders dated 4-11-2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19579, 19539, 19540 and 19628 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge wherein the challenge was to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dt. 10-7-2002 for acquisition of Ac. 2.04 gts., Ac.1.10 gts., 16.29 gts. and Ac. 0.13 gts., respectively, of land belonging to the appellant-petitioners. The total extent of the land sought to be acquired under the said notification was Ac. 80.35 guntas. Inasmuch as the notification under challenge in all these appeals is one and the same, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The genesis leading to the filing of these cases, in nutshell, is as follows:The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued proposing to acquire an extent of Ac. 80.35 of land including the land belonging to the appellant-petitione...
Jvsp Purnananda Rao and ors. Vs. Commissioner and Director of School E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD785; 2006(1)ALT528
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari by calling records relating to and connected file OA 4626 of 2000 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to set aside the orders dated 10.8.2000 by holding the same arbitrary, erroneous and unsustainable and also to declare the writ petitioners as seniors to the unofficial respondent No. 3 in the cadre of Senior Assistants and also to direct the official respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the writ petitioners to the posts of Superintendents in the existing vacancies.2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:The 3rd respondent was recruited as Junior Assistant in the Education Department on 2.9.1980 at Kakinada.The first petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.8.1982, the second petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 12.8.1983 and the third petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 5.9.1984 in the same department. All of them were regularized a...
Choppala Lalitha Kumari Vs. Gogulamudi Bhaskara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT628; I(2006)DMC607
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri B. Devadas, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner. The matter is coming up for orders of this Court on an objection taken by the office while numbering the O.P. filed by the petitioner under Section 10-A(1) read with Section 8 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. This O.P is presented before this Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the strength of an agreement dated 26-11-1984. It is stated that the elders had settled the matter and in pursuance thereto, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The office raised an objection 'it should be stated how this petition can be presented in the High Court directly without approaching District Court in view of the provisions of Amendment Act (Act 51/2001) which came into force from 3-10-2001'. It was also pointed out 'petition may be filed in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it as per ...
Sajan Kumar and ors. Vs. Dr. D.N. Dhumale
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT81
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The 1st revision petitioner, here-in-after referred to as tenant and the other revision petitioners - R-2 to R-4 in R.C. No. 176/95 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, styled as sub-tenants. Aggrieved by the order of eviction made in the aforesaid R.C. as confirmed in R.A. No. 125/99 on the file of Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short here-in-after referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience).2. Respondent in the C.R.P. Dr. D.N. Dhumale (here-in-after referred to as landlord) filed R.C. No. 176/95 aforesaid on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and acts of waste. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of Dr. D.N. Dhumale as P.W.1 and Sajjan Kumar as R.W.1, marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 and ordered eviction specifically answering and recording findings relat...
Manapragada Krishna Murthy Vs. Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP78; 2006(1)ALT243
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Appellant, who is the defendant, filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 127 of 1988 dated 14-3-2000, which is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,773.40 ps, being the amount due on a promissory note executed by the appellant-defendant herein.2. For the sake of convenience and proper understanding the parties are referred to as arrayed before the court below.3. The facts in brief are that the defendant was working in the plaintiffs' Transport Company as a Clerk, a branch of which was situated at Rajahmundry, from the year 1973 onwards till 19-8-1985. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant worked as an Accountant-cum-Cashier from the year 1983 in their branch at Rajahmundry, and used to maintain the books of account and handle cash, which fact had been denied by the defendant. On 8-7-1985, P.W.1-Territory Manager, called the defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »