Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
M. Babu Rao and ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/Of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD582; 2005(4)ALT327; [2005]126CompCas708(AP); [2005]63SCL339(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard - Sri E. Manohar, Sri J.V. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocates, Sri D.V. Bhadram, Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, Sri Badri Premnath, Advocates for the several petitioners/appellants; learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Sri Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocates for the several Co-operative Banks and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Advocate for the Union of India.2. The several writ petitions were filed at various stages of proceedings before the authorities of the Registration Department of the State. All the writ petitioners had obtained loans or Overdraft facility from the respective Co-operative Banks in sums exceeding Rupees ten lakhs each. In every instance there was a default in the repayment of the instalments or the loan amount and consequently a violation of the terms of the loan agreement. The lending Co-operative Banks had initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Andh...
Liberty Commodities Ltd. Vs. Reliance Trade Corporation Plc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT514; [2007]138CompCas562(AP)
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This is a Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 50 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Ml-Addl. District Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by the order dated 28-2-2005 in having entertained O.P. No. 50 of 2005 and also granting ad interim injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner from alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating third party rights in the Cargo which is on board the m.v. ORMOS and further directing not to move the cargo until and unless the Revision petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee to a sum of US $ 2,171,411.39.2. The facts in brief may be noted as under:The Revision petitioner (Liberty Commodities Limited) and the first respondent herein (Reliance Trade Corporation) are the Companies incorporated under the Laws of England, carrying on trading activities having their registered offices at London. By Voyage Charter-party dated 17-9-2004, the owners of m.v. SEA ORCHID viz Bay field Sh...
Apsrtc Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD772; 2005(4)ALT654
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. In these civil revision petitions common questions of law and facts are involved; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Few facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these revisions, are to be noted as under:3. That an extent of Acs.2.38 gts of land in Survey Nos. 28 to 30 of Adilabad Town was acquired for the purpose of locating Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bus Station through a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), which was published in the Official Gazette on 3-11-1977. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12.37 ps per square yard by an Award dated 26-9-1979. The claimant-respondents being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court i.e., Additional District Judge's...
Narsing Pershad Vs. Station House Officer, Begum Bazar Police Station ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD150
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Petitioner complains that the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent is interfering and coercing the petitioner to settle the dispute with the 2nd second respondent.2. The petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd respondent preferred the complaint to the 1st respondent stating that he is making unauthorized construction over his property, which is interference with the beneficent enjoyment of the 2nd respondent's property. On such a complaint, which is civil in nature, the 1st respondent called him to the Police Station on 7-6-2004, 9-6-2004 and 13-6-2004 and directed the petitioner to settle the dispute with the second respondent.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel Mr. Vilas Afzalpurkar, for the Respondent No. 2.4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is not asserted or established that the complaint is with regard to commission or threat of commission of a...
Mirza Liyaquath HussaIn Vs. G. Srinivas Goud
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD77; 2005(5)ALT211
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S.No. 3297 of 2004, in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule premises and recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner entered appearance, and filed I.A.No. 13 of 2005, seeking permission of the Court to file written statement, since 30 days time, stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 8 C.P.C. expired. The trial Court rejected the same, through its order dated 4-3-2005. Hence, this revision.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.3. The trial Court took the view that the written statement was presented to it, beyond 90 days, and as such, it cannot be received. It also took note of the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the suit, inasmuch as he has received notice in an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., and that he was not diligent in filing the written st...
K.S. Biyani and Co. Vs. Authority for Advance Ruling Under A.P. Vat Ac ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC111(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, Ag. C.J.1. This is a writ petition challenging the order of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings. The writ petition has been filed on the sole ground that the order of Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings created under Section 67 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is not appealable. The Authority while passing the impugned order has stated in a note appended to the order that the appeal against these proceedings can be filed before the A.P. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of this ruling.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a note would not confer jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, as the statute does not make such orders appealable. He refers to Section 33 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. This section lays down that the dealer may file appeal in cases specified under Section 33, and the learned Counsel would contend that an order under Section 67 of the Act is not...
theetla Vijayudu Vs. Gaddam Lakshmidevi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT655
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take out personal notices to the respondents and file proof of service. Though the respondents were served with notices, none represents on behalf of the respondents.2. Sri. G. Ramesh, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, would submit that an application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') praying for sending the original sale deed dated 17-09-2004, executed by the petitioner and the alleged mortgage deed dated 3-12-1997 marked as Ex.B-1 to the A.P. Forensic Lab for comparison and for opinion of the expert.3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed O.S.No. 815 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, which was instituted on the strength of a mortgage deed and an exparte decree was obtained. The revision petitioner move...
Chinna Ganganna Vs. Chinna Doddeppa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD198
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The sole defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 1993, on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, is the appellant. He challenges the decree and judgment dated 23.8.2000, passed by the trial Court, which in turn was affirmed in A.S. No. 15 of 2000, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, through the judgment dated 26.8.2004.2. The parties are related to each other. The appellant and the first respondent are brothers. The second respondent is the wife of their brother late Sathenna @ Avulayappa.3. The father of appellant and first respondent, by name Chinna Gangappa, and his brothers, Putla Gangappa and Sanna Gangappa, were sons of one Putla Sathenna. A partition took place in this large joint Hindu family, in the year 1964. We are not concerned with the shares allotted to other branches. The first respondent, the husband of the second respondent and the appellant were allotted properties- of schedule B, C and E, respectively, of the partition deed.4....
Munaga Venugopal Rao and anr. Vs. Munaga Radhakrishna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT663
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 13 of 2000 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule properties against the petitioners. The petitioners filed the written statement and took various pleas. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that they have perfected their title in respect of the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession. At a later point of time, they filed I.A. No. 514 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C, with a prayer to permit them to claim the relief of declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule properties on the strength of the alleged adverse possession; through counter-claim and sought to pay the Court fee on such relief. The respondents resisted the application. They pleaded that the petitioners filed O.S. No. 762 of 1980 in the Court of the III Additional District Munsif, Kadapa aga...
Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Visakhapatnam Urban Deve ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD230; 2005(6)ALT204
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. An extent of 1180 square yards of land belonging to the respondents situated in Visakhapatnam Town was acquired by the petitioner-Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, for the purpose of widening of an existing road. The possession of the land was taken on 5-6-1975 and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 18-4-1980. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16-5-1980. An award was passed on 15-5-1985 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 66/- per square yard. The respondents were not satisfied about it. They received the compensation under protest and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act.2. Acceding to the request of the respondents, the petitioner referred the matter to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It was taken up as O.P. No. 757 of 1996. The Trial Court took the view that the award passed by the petitioner after a lapse of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »