Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Voddevolu Venkaiah Vs. Narayanam Venkata Seshacharyulu (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT207
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant in respect of Ac. 13.12 cents of agricultural land at Mallavarappadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. The original landlord, one Mr. Narayanam Venkata Seshacharyulu, died so, much so, some of his legal representatives also died.2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed A.T.C. No. 46 of 1990 before the Special Officer For Tenancy Cases, Ongole for eviction of the petitioner from the land, on the ground that the petitioner committed default in payment of the rent for the year 1988-89. The respondent pleaded that the rent per annum up to the year 1970 was Rs. 2,400/- and it was enhanced to Rs. 2,700/- by 1974 and with the agreed enhancements, it became Rs. 3,500/- for the year 1988-89. They alleged that the petitioner did not pay the rent, in spite of several demands and sought for eviction.3. The petitioner resisted the claim by contending that the agreed rent payable...
R. Purushothama Reddy and anr. Vs. Mrs. Apuroopamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD147; 2005(4)ALT538
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 22 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. They feel aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, setting aside an exparte decree.2. The petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The 1st respondent is the mother of the 2nd respondent. They are residents of Hyderabad. Soon after they received summons in the suit, they filed a written statement. The suit was posted for trial on 3-12-1998. On the ground that the respondents did not attend the Court on 3-12-1998, the trial Court set them exparte and posted the suit for exparte evidence. On 7-12-1998, exparte evidence of plaintiffs' was recorded and ultimately, an exparte decree was passed.3. The respondents-defendants filed I.A. No. 43 of 1999 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., to set aside the exparte decree. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in suppor...
V. Anjaneyulu Vs. Vadapalli Peddanna @ Peddaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD206; 2005(4)ALT674
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision raises a short, but important question viz., when an unregistered document evidences two separate transactions, out of which one is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, whether the document becomes inadmissible as a whole or can be admitted, in so far as it relates to the transaction, which does not require registration.2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.78 of 1992 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for a declaration that he is the adopted son of respondents 1 and 2. the trial of the suit is in progress. During the course of his evidence, he intended to rely upon a document, dated 5-2-1961. This document is said to have been executed by respondents 1 and 2. It refers, firstly, to the factum of adoption of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2, and thereafter, to the settlement of the property held by them, in favour of the petitioner, on the one hand, and their daughter, by name Ramulamma, on t...
Pandugula Vali Basha Vs. N. Mohammed Haris and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT760
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Introduction: The defendant in O.S. No. 1/91 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 30-1-1995, preferred the present appeal. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. The suit was instituted under Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein-the defendant, his men, agents from using the offending trade mark 'Photo Hussain Basha Beedilu or using similar trade mark of the plaintiffs or making use of such labels or passing off the goods-Beedies of the defendant with such mark and also further prayed for an order to deliver up all the infringing labels and marks available with the defendant to the plaintiff for destruction and also further prayed for awarding of damages of Rs. 1,000/- for passing off the goods and for such other suitable reliefs. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1...
K. Raghavender Reddy Vs. Divisional Manager, Ipb Co. (indo Burma Petro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD372
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the grant of permission to the 6th respondent for establishing a retail outlet of petroleum products in Sy.Nos. 7 and 8 of Amberpet, Moosarambagh Road, Hyderabad.2. According to the petitioner, his premises is abutting the disputed premises, where the permission was granted by the 1st respondent for establishing a retail outlet of petroleum products. It is stated that the petitioner has set up a function hall in the premises, and his grievance is that his kitchen is abutting the neighbouring premises, where the proposed petroleum products retail outlet is to be established by the 6th respondent. As the kitchen is abutting the said premises, there is every likelihood of danger of causing fire explosion in view of the kitchen and petrol side by side. Therefore, the petitioner sought for quashing the permission that was granted to the 6th respondent for establishing a retail outlet of petroleum products...
Koduru Sesha Reddy Vs. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD372
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 23 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. He filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed two applications, one under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., for temporary injunction and Anr. being I.A.No. 146 of 2001 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Both the applications were ordered ex parte. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report noting down the physical features, alleged to be of the suit schedule property.2. The respondents filed I.A. No. 396 of 2004 for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner. According to them, the appointment of Commissioner by the Court in I.A. No. 146 of 2001 was without notice to them and that the petitioner had mislead the Commissioner at the time of noting down the physical features. This application was resisted by the ...
Policherla Samuel (Died) and ors. Vs. Policherla Yesupadam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD859
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 141 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur filed this second appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit and confirmation of the same by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur in A.S. No. 26 of 1998.2. The suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor in respect of four items of the suit schedule property, which consists of agricultural lands and house sites. The suit was initially filed by one Mr. Policherla Samuel, the first appellant herein, alone. During the pendency of the suit, he died, and his legal representatives, appellants 2 to 7, were brought on record.3. The appellants pleaded that the suit schedule properties were originally held jointly by two brothers by name B. Pitchaiah and B. Narsaiah. Pitchaiah had three daughters, who were married and living in their matrimonial houses, he was living with his brother Narsaiah. Narsaiah had a son by name Venkataiah, and a daughter ...
M. Viswanatham Vs. P.M. Prakash
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT630
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The tenant-respondent in R.C. No. 691 of 1990 as against the order in R.C. No. 691 of 90 on the file of the 1st Additional Rent Controller as confirmed in R.A. No. 559 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad had preferred CRP No. 3596 of 2000.2. The tenant also filed another C.R.P. No. 3920 of 2000 as against the order made in R.A. No. 206 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad which was preferred by the landlord, inasmuch as two grounds have been negatived, though eviction was ordered on other two grounds. Hence, both the C.R.Ps. are being disposed of by this common order.3. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter be referred to as landlord and tenant.4. The landlord filed R.C. No. 691 of 1990 on the file of the 1st Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the following grounds:-(1) Wilful default,(2) Bona fide requirement-Additional accommodation(3) Mal...
S. Chandraiah Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD360; 2005(5)ALT595
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner - workman, challenges the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 251 of 1993 dated 29-12-1993 and seeks reinstatement into the services of the 2nd respondent company with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The petitioner was formerly a Maintenance Fitter in the 2nd respondent-company. On 5-6-1989 the petitioner's scooter is alleged to have been checked on his return from duty and found to contain some bearings. A police complaint was lodged in C.C. No. 194/89 against the petitioner and one Sri Muralikrishna. The petitioner is said to have confessed his guilt on 6-6-1989 and to have submitted his resignation (which the petitioner contends was under coercion). The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 13-6-1989 to which he is said to have given his explanation on 22-6-1989, (received by the 2nd respondent on 24-6-1989), whereby he is also said to have revoked...
Pericherla Narayanama Vs. Sri Rama Fertilizers and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD495
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The CMSA and the CRP are connected with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The parties to both the proceedings are common, and their array, except for the description of the appellant, is common. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the C.M.S.A.3. Kasani Satyanarayana, the second respondent, is the owner of the schedule premises, which is a residential house and shed. The appellant claimed that the second respondent executed an agreement of sale in her favour on 6.1.1984, for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-, mainly for the purpose of discharging his debts to the Bhimavaram Co-operative Urban Bank. Alleging that the second respondent did not execute the sale deed in spite of demands, the appellant filed O.S. No. 81 of 1985 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram, for specific performance of agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 18.11.1985. In pursuance of the decree, the Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »