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.
Neelam Ajit Vs. V. Suresh Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT471
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Challenging the order, dated 1-10-2004, passed in I.A.No. 831 of 2004 in O.S.No. 5696 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present CRP is filed.2. The first respondent herein filed the main suit against the second respondent-Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction and not to demolish the building in question. An interlocutory application was filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same was allowed by the trial Court. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein, who is a third party i.e. neighbour of the petition schedule building, filed the present I.A. to implead him as 2nd defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC alleging that the first respondent herein is constructing the building deviating the sanctioned plan and that the second respondent failed to take any action for the said unauthorized constructions and that easementary rights of his building have been adversely affected due to illega...
Ramesh Watch Company, Rep. by Its Partner, Sri Chandru Chugani, S/O. G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD467; 2005(5)ALT372
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The order of the first respondent-Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), in MP No. 263 of 1987, dated 11-6-1994, allowing the claim of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,837/-, is the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition.2. This Court, in WPMP No. 26691 of 1994 dated 08-12-1994, passed an interim order suspending the award passed by the Tribunal on condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal within six weeks and that on such deposit it was open to the 2nd respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.3. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the amount involved in the writ petition is negligible, only Rs. 7,837/-, out of which 50% was deposited by the petitioner and had already been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent herein, it was necessary that the questions of law,...
Yadava Kamalabai Vs. Bijjam Venkata Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD761; 2005(5)ALT769
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.350 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Prodduturu is the petitioner. She filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with interest, from the respondent. The trial of the suit commenced. She sought to rely upon a document dated 4-5-2001 in her evidence. The respondent raised an objection as to its admissibility, on the ground that it evidences an usufructuary mortgage. Through its order dated 29-12-2003 the trial court sustained the objection and refused to receive the document in evidence. Hence, this revision.2. Sri A.V.S. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document in question, had only enabled the petitioner to remain in the said premises, in lieu of payment of interest, on the amount of Rs. 70,000/- advanced by her, and as such it cannot be treated as a transaction of usufructuary mortgage. He further submits that even otherwise, the document cou...
Palakurthi Lakshmi Ganapathi Rao and Gundu Subhadramma, Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD334; 2006(3)ALT711
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Introduction:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.1/89 on the file of District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, is the appellant and defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit are the respondents herein. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for declaration that he is the copyright holder of the Telugu feature film Paramanandayya Sishula Katha and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to surrender and deliver the material relating to the film i.e., 3/4th U matic cassettes, 1/2 VHS video cassettes, video gram, Discs, tapes, etc., and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, etc., from over exploiting the plaintiff's right over the said picture and also claiming damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and for accounts. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W.1, D.Ws.1 and 2, and marked...
Amrat and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records- ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD140; 2005(4)ALT636
ORDERG. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. As 8th and 9th respondents died, W.P.M.P. No. 18314 of 2002 is filed by the writ petitioners for bringing on record the legal representatives of the said respondents i.e., the legal representatives of the 8th respondent as respondents 12 to 16 and the legal representatives of 9th respondent as 17 and 18.3. Similarly as 3rd respondent also died, W.P.M.P. No.23405/2002 is filed for bringing on record his legal representatives as respondents 19 to 25.4. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents Sri K. Mahipathi Rao submitted that the respondents have no objection in respect of bringing on record the legal representatives of 3rd and 8th respondents as respondents 12 to 16 and 19 to 25. With regard to the bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased 9th respondent is concerned, he vehemently opposed for the same raising contentions referring to provisions under Order 22 of C.P.C. and also relying on the ju...
Bheemappa (Died) and ors. Vs. Gangamani (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD367
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1998, on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda, are the appellants. Two defendants, the sister and brother of the sole plaintiff, also expired during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, their legal representatives are brought on record. The parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiff claimed that in a family partition between himself and the second defendant, the suit schedule property, in an extent of Ac.312 gts., in Sy.No. 35 I/A of Jukkal Village, fell to his share, along with certain other properties. He stated that his sister, the first defendant, initiated proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), for mutation in respect of that very land in her favour, on the strength of a gift deed dated 22-4-1997 said to have been executed in her favour by their father and that after hearing both the parties, the MRO rejected her claim, through hi...
Gudapati Seetharamaiah @ Seetharama Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD144
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-8-1989 in O.S. No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Khammam.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under:Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the brothers and the third plaintiff is their sister. The fourth plaintiff is a resident of Nacharam Village. The plaintiffs claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.9.23 guntas in Sy.No. 398/2 to 7 (old Sy.Nos. 917 and 918), Ac.7.32 guntas in Sy.No. 503, Ac.4.20 guntas in Sy.No. 503, Ac.2.13 guntas in Sy.No. 413 and Ac. 1.26 guntas in Sy.No. 415 respectively, situated at Nacharam Village. Subsequently, the said lands were mistakenly shown as 'Khariz Khata land'. The third plaintiff was gifted with the land as 'pasupu kumkuma'. The case of the plaintiffs is that their...
C.S.i. Primary (Aided) School and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT594
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc. No. 1057/B2/2000, dated 25-11 -2003 and the action of appointing the officers not belonging to Education Department as his nominees to participate in the selection process for filling of the aided vacancies of Teacher Posts in the petitioners' schools, as illegal and in violation of A.P. Education Act and G.O.Ms. No. 1, dated 1-1-1994.2. The case of the petitioners is that their respective schools are aided schools and in pursuance of the memo issued by the third respondent in Rc. No. 1057/B2/2003, dated 1-6-2003, they submitted the proposals to the third respondent for filling up the vacancies in their respective schools. The third respondent, after calling for the remarks and after satisfying, accorded permission to the petitioners schools in the months of June and July, 2003 by appointing the concerned Deputy Educational Officer as his ...
Bathala Guravaiah Vs. B. Pitchaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD101; 2005(5)ALT4
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents.2. Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had brought it to the notice of this Court that on the self same day i.e. on 21-02- 2005, in the same application in I.A. No. 4 of 2004 in A.S. No. 7 of 2002, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajampet at Badvel, made two orders and hence, the revision petitioner was constrained to file two C.R.Ps. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Judge of this Court made an order in C.R.P. No. 1023 of 2005, dated 25-04-2005, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the appellate Court was directed to consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'CPC') at the time of disposal of the appeal as to the relevancy of documents on merits and pass appropriate...
Kurella Krishna Prasad, S/O. Kuppaiah Chetty and 15 ors. Vs. the State ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)203; 2005CriLJ4431
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Inspector of Police, Puttur Circle, laid a charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 (for short - 'the Act'), for their gambling in a premise where Puttur Recreation & Cultural Association is housed. This petition is filed to quash the said charge sheet.2. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners are members of Puttur Recreation & Cultural Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, with an object of promoting sports and games among youth and middle aged people etc., and when police started interfering with their lawful activities, they filed W.P.No.16292 of 2003 seeking a direction restraining the police from interfering with their lawful activities in the Club and had also filed O.S.No.116 of 2004 seeking an injunction restraining the police from interfering with the lawful activities in the club and so police, feeling aggrieved by their filing a writ petition and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »