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.
K. Subramanyam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala Mandal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD658; 2005(5)ALT246
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed be one K. Subrahmanyam, with a prayer to issue an order or direction, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not allotting the land in Survey No. 434/1, situated at 81-Upparapally Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. A further direction is also sought for against the Respondents 1 to 3 not to allot the land in Survey Number 434/1 of 81-Upparapally Village to any third party. The Respondents 4 to 17 came on record as per the orders in W.P.M.P. No. 3064/ 2004. They claimed that they are the assignees of Ac.0.03 cents each in Survey Number 434.2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he served in the Indian Army for about 17 years and retired from service in the year November, 2001. He submitted an application for allotment of agricultural land in Chittoor District to his superior officers while in service. His superior officers forwarded his app...
Chunduru Muralidhara Rao Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD812; 2005(5)ALT101
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 70 of 1992 dated 20-4-1994 insofar as it relates to denial of back wages. Consequential directions are sought against the respondents for payment of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement and to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from 19-8-1988.2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner was a conductor employed by the respondent - APSRTC. He was suspended on 6-8-1988 pending enquiry for mis-behaviour and insubordination towards his higher authorities. On 17-7-1988, when he was on duty in Nellore town service, the petitioner is said to have demanded ticket from a Traffic Inspector and when the Traffic Inspector advised him to move the bus while collecting tickets and not to continuously sit while issuing tickets to the passengers, the petitioner is alleged to have become wil...
A.P. Beedi Workers Union Vs. Labour Court-ii and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD72; [2005(107)FLR298]
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Writ Petition No. 8537 of 1994 is filed by The Andhra Pradesh Beedi Workers Union, Nizamabad represented by its General Secretary, challenging the validity of the award of the Labour Court II, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 556 of 1992 (Old I.D. No. 128/83) dated 24-1-1994 insofar as it relates to denial of back wages and for a consequential direction to the respondent management of Sable Waghire and Company Beedi Manufacturers to pay back wages to the workmen concerned from the date of their termination i.e, 17-4-1981 till the date of their reinstatement.2. W.P. No. 15529 of 1994 is filed by the management of Sable Waghire and Company Limited challenging the validity of the award of the Labour Court II in I.D. No. 556 of 1992 dated 24-1-1994 (Old I.D. NO. 128/83) published in the Gazette of 5-3-1994 as illegal, unjust and contrary to law.3. Since both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the very same award of the Labour Court II, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 556/92...
Davuluri Venkateswararao and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Distri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD846; 2005(5)ALT213
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. These three revisions can be disposed of by a common order since the issue arises for consideration in the three revision petitions is one and the same.2. Petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 217 of 1994, filed I.A.No. 1121 of 1994 for granting temporary mandatory injunction. In the said I.A., on 21-4-1994, the Court below granted temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the cross-bunds and the feeding channel formed by them to take the bore-well water from the land of the third respondent to the lands of respondents 3 and 8 to 10 and not to cause any obstruction for free passage of the petitioners, their men and cattle through the suit schedule puntha. The main suit was also decreed on 21-4-1999 directing the respondents to remove all the encroachments and obstructions in the Puntha shown as 'ABCDEFGH' in the plaint plan.3. Pending the suit, I.A.No. 2463 of 1994 was filed in I.A.No. 1121 of 1994 under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC ...
Meghraj Rathi and anr. Vs. Joint Sub-registrar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP140; 2005(5)ALD178; 2005(4)ALT419
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the Primary Authority under Section 47 (sic. 47-A) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'), as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, under that provision.2. Petitioners purchased premises Door Nos. 6-9-31 to 45 of Santhapeta, of Vizianagaram town, from one Lakshmi Chand Nathani, for a consideration of Rs. 27,05,600/-. They presented a sale deed for registration before the Joint Sub-Registrar R.O. (OB), Vizianagaram. The sale deed was written on a stamp paper, worth Rs. 3,24,700/-.3. The registering authority took the view that the petitioners ought to have paid the stamp duty of Rs. 4,27,620/-, on the assumption that the market value of the property is Rs. 35,63,500/-. In arriving at this figure, he relied upon the guidelines contained in Circular dated 21-08-2001 issued by the State Government. Since the petitioners did not agree to pay the deficit...
S.V.A. Balakrishna Vs. S. Kanakavalli and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD650; 2005(5)ALT236; II(2006)DMC448
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since the subject-matter in both the appeals is interrelated and the order being common, we dispose of the same by this common judgment.3. The husband is the appellant and the wife is the respondent in both the appeals.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent in both the appeals will be referred to as 'the husband' and 'the wife', respectively.5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that O.P. No. 55 of 1993 was filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights while O.P. No. 125 of 1993 was filed by the husband under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') for a declaration that the marriage between the parties as nullity on the ground that the marriage was performed by force. O.P.No. 55 of 1993 filed by the wife was decreed while O.P. No. 125 of 1993 filed by the husband was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the husband.6. It is the contenti...
Sri Rama Trading Co. Vs. Kollepara Nookaraju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD748; 2005(5)ALT80
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni, represented by its Managing Partner, filed the present C.R.P., under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The respondent herein-the petitioner in R.C.C. No. 9/89 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate-Rent Controller, Tuni, filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act praying for eviction on the ground of denial of title, yet another ground of wilful default and also another ground of bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 16-4-1996, on appreciation of the evidence ofP.Ws. 1 and 2 and R.W.1 and Exs.P. 1 to P. 11 and R. 1 to R. 17, answered all the points in favour of the respondent in the present C.R.P. the petitioner in the R.C.C., and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner herein-the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 13/96 on the file of the Rent Control A...
Kotha Sathyamma and ors. Vs. Irukula Praveen Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT13
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three revisions are filed by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 9 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla. They were arrayed in the same position as respondents in A.S. No. 24 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar.2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring 427 square yards in Survey No. 688 of Sircilla town. They traced their title to the purchase made by one Mr. Irukula Venkanna, the elder brother of their grand father. It was alleged that the petitioners have unauthorisedly and unlawfully encroached the suit schedule property and made constructions. The suit was resisted by the petitioners herein and other defendants. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 27-4-2002. Respondents 1 to 3 filed A.S. No. 24 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge ...
Dr. Rayadurgam Gurappa and anr. Vs. Chowdam Kondappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP28; 2005(5)ALD381
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The matter is coming up for admission today. It is represented that Sri L.J. Veera Reddy had lodged a Caveat on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff.2. Sri V.R. Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had made submissions at length to the effect that this is a suit for refund of consideration and for the relief of specific performance. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of the amendment introduced by A.P. Amendment Act 4 of 1999, an agreement of sale of the value of the immovable property of more than Rs. 100/-is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and in view of the nature of the suit, the proviso to Section 49 of the Act cannot be made applicable. The Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the document in question is liable for stamp duty and penalty.3. Per contra, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff would submit that in view of the lack ...
S.A.K. MynoddIn Vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD782
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 3447 of 2002, in the Court of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the petitioner. The first defendant filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 94,005/-, against the petitioner and three others. The liability is traceable to a chit transaction. While the petitioner is the subscriber, respondents 2, 3 and 4 are sureties.2. On receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioner engaged an Advocate and filed the written statement. However, the suit came to be decreed on 2.9.2003. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 314 of 2004, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., stating inter alia that he went to Giddalur in Prakasam District, to attend upon his ailing mother. It was pleaded that he could not instruct his Counsel properly, and in the meanwhile, the decree came to be passed. He stated that he came to know about the decree only when a Bailiff came to him in the process of execution of the decree. Since there was delay in...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »