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.
Sri Srinivasa Enterprises and ors. Vs. Narayana Das
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT735
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29-12-1999, made in R.A.No. 504 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the learned Additional Chief judge dismissed the appeal of the landlords and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller passed in R.C.No. 1175 of 1988.2. The revision petitioners herein are the landlords and the respondent herein is the tenant of the schedule premises in R.C.No. 1175 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the eviction petition.3. The petitioners-landlords filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(c) of A.P. Rent Control Act, (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of petitioners' requirement for additional accommodation.4. The case of the petitioners-landlords before the Rent controller is that the...
S. Haneef Vs. M. Shafath Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2(2007)BC25
ORDER1. These two revisions have come up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration on the issue as to:Whether a Trial Court awards compensation, while imposing a sentence, of which, fine does not form a part, in purported exercise of powers under Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. is such compensation amount not liable to be paid either before the period allowed for presenting an appeal has elapsed or when an appeal is presented, before the decision in the appeal; and whether the Appellate Court before whom an appeal is presented by the accused has discretion in the matter modulating the grant of an interlocutory order (of suspension and grant of bail) by imposing conditions as to how payment of compensation shall be made pending decision in the appeal.2. Briefly stating the facts on the backdrop are that the revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881...
Gosu Venkata Sesha Reddy and anr. Vs. Valluru Krishnaiah Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD761; 2005(4)ALT238
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The judgment-debtors in E.P. No. 164 of 2000 in O.S. No. 815 of 1996 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, are the petitioners. They challenge the docket order dated 27-8-2004, through which, the Executing Court confirmed the sale.2. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount from the petitioners. He obtained attachment, under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., in relation to an item of immovable property belonging to the petitioners, before judgment. The suit was decreed on 22-3-1999, and the decree became final.3. The respondent filed E.P. No. 164 of 2000 for execution of the decree. Since the property was already under attachment, sale notification was published and auction was held on 26-7-2004. The respondent participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. The Executing Court confirmed the sale through the order under revision.4. Sri M. Venkat...
Pillakathuku Subbarathnam and anr. Vs. Executive Officer, Polathala Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD75; 2005(4)ALT423
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioners-plaintiffs in I.A No. 1123 of 2004 in O.S. No. 24 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-2005 had preferred the present revision petition. Notice before Admission was ordered and the respondents were served, but, none represents them.2. The petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application in I.A. No. 1123 of 2004 in O.S. No. 24 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa under Order XXIII Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') praying this Court to permit them to withdraw O.S. No. 24 of 2000 with a liberty to file fresh suit.3. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the suit was originally drafted by one Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate in which there were certain serious defects in the pleadings and also in the reliefs prayed for. In view of the fact that the suit was not properly framed, the subsequent counsel Sri N. Krishna M...
Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-lab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD846; 2005(5)ALT32
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. Writ Petition No. 21158 of 1998 is filed by the Management, while Writ Petition No. 22175 of 1998 is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the Award dated 12-11-1997 in I.D. No. 99 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad.2. The only question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Labour Court can take up the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry, which aspect was already dealt with by the National Tribunal while examining the application filed by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') again ?3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire material on record including the Order dated 21-7-1997 and the impugned Award of the Labour Court.4. The Labour Court while dealing with the validity of the domestic enquiry held that since the said question has already been examined by the Nationa...
Chekka Adinarayana and anr. Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC847; 2005(4)ALD840; 2005(5)ALT50
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. l17 of 1986 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in the said suit dated 22-10-1992, preferred the present appeal.2. The respondents/defendants are the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Limited and others. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards an insurance claim, and for costs. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 to B23 and ultimately dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/ plaintiffs preferred the present appeal.3. Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel representing the appellants/plaintiffs had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record, and would contend that the insurance policy as such is not in controversy. The learned Counsel also would maintain that on the g...
Y. Sanjeeva Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD837; 2005(5)ALT106
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner herein was granted a licence in Form IL-24 under Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for brevity 'the Rules') for the year 1998-99 i.e., 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999. As required under Rule 26-A of the Rules, he applied for renewal of licence for the subsequent year 1999-2000. The same was not done. The petitioner made representation for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid towards part of the licence fee and return of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It was not done. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the licence fee paid by the petitioner.2. Initially for the year 1998-99 the petitioner was granted licence to run IL-24 shop in premises bearing No. 7/228, Opp: R.T.C. Bus Stand, Gooty. It was a rented premises. The landlady did not give her consent for running the shop for the year 1999-2000. Therefore, the petitioner made a r...
Kusampudi Subba Raju Vs. Master Penumatsa Sayi Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD88; 2005(5)ALT192
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 174/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem (old O.S. No. 248/83 ESC) had preferred the present Appeal. Respondents 2, 3, 7 and 16 died and it was stated that respondents 4, 8, 9 to 15, the legal representatives of the aforesaid respondents already on record. The appellant herein/ plaintiff prayed for division of plaintiff schedule properties into three equal shares and allot him 1/3rd share and also prayed for the relief of mesne profits. The suit claim was resisted by respondents/defendants by filing a separate written statement and the trial Court after settling the issues had examined P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 to D.W. 11, marked Exs. A-1 and Exs. B-1 to B-26 and ultimately by Judgment dated 25-2-1998 dismissed the suit directing each party to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is preferred.2. Sri C.C.S. Sastry, the learned Counsel re...
Dangeti Padmavathi and anr. Vs. Gundumogula Sri Venkata Gopi Satyanara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD753; 2005(4)ALT457
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same.2. The respondents/defendants filed the above two revision petitions against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, in allowing C.M.A. Nos. 12 and 15 of 2002 filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of I.A. Nos. 2203 and 1973 of 2000 in O.S. No. 485 of 2000 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.3. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove cement bricks and not to interfere with ABEF lane either by closing the same or by causing any obstruction, and other reliefs.4. Pending the suit the defendants filed I.A. No. 1974 of 2000 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. While granting injunction the learned Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner on 28-9-2000 to inspect the suit locality. After completion of enquiry the Advocate Commissioner fil...
Sanepalli Subbi Reddy Vs. Bathalal Narasimha Naidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD189; 2005(4)ALT438
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Revision Petitioner-1st defendant had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order, dated 21 -12-2004 made in I.A. No. 317 of 2004 in O.S. No. 73 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.2. On 13-4-2005, this Court ordered 'Notice before admission'. One of the respondents refused to receive and other respondents are served, but none represents the respondents.3. The revision petitioner moved the above interlocutory application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking the Court to enlarge the time for filing the written statement and receive the same in the interest of justice. The written statement also had been enclosed with the application. In view of the fact that the written statement was filed beyond the period of ninety days, and inasmuch as no reasonable cause had been shown to condone the delay and receive the written statement, the learned Judge dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »