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.
Jugal Kishore Loya Vs. Hanuman Prasad Soni
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD323; 2005(5)ALT1
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 215 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur is the petitioner. He feels aggrieved by the order, dated 18-3-2004 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 21 of 2004 filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C.2. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for a three-fold relief viz., for grant of perpetual injunction restraining him from using the wall which is described in the schedule, for a direction to the respondent to remove the portion of the structure raised by him on the northern side of the suit building and for payment of damages assessed at Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for demolition of certain structures. I n the body of the plaint, he made a reference to the filing of O.S. No. 9 of 2000 in the same Court for the relief of perpetual injunction and the compromise decree passed therein. He alleged that subsequent to the compromise decree, the respondent brought about several construct...
Singanaboina Mallaiah and ors. Vs. Singaboina Madhusudhan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD443; 2005(6)ALT152
L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Defendant No. 4 and the legal representatives of defendant No. 5, being defendants 9, 10 and 11, in O.S.No. 32 of 1985, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Kamareddy, filed this second appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 are defendants 1 to 3. Respondent No. 8 is defendant No. 6 and respondents 9 and 10 are defendants 7 and 8 respectively. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 5 died and his legal representatives defendants 9, 10 and 11 were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff No. 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and are sons of late Singanaboina Sivaiah. Plaintiff No. 4 is their mother. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons of defendants 1 and 2 respectively. They filed the suit for the relief of; (a) declaration that the lands in plaint A schedule are the ancestral property of the joint family, comprising of plaintiffs and defend...
P. Laxma Reddy Vs. Syndicate Bank, Zaheerabad Branch, Rep. by Its Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD81; 2005(5)ALT606; IV(2006)BC58
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner borrowed certain amount from the first respondent. Since he failed to repay the same, the first respondent filed O.S. No. 23 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The suit was decreed. After it became final, the first respondent filed E.P. No. 30 of 1996. Initially, an item of immovable property was attached. Alleging that the sale of the property had to be adjourned for want of bidders, due to interference by the petitioner and other judgment-debtors, the first respondent filed E.A. No. 300 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule21 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit it to take simultaneous execution for arrest of the petitioner as well as to proceed against the property.2. The petitioner filed the counter affidavit stating that the property that was attached in the execution does not belong to him, and that it was held by his father late P. Pandarinath Reddy and on his death, it became the joint family property of his mother,...
Akella Rama Murthy Vs. Akella Sitalaxmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP497; 2005(6)ALD108; 2005(5)ALT771; I(2006)DMC883
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The relations between them are strained. The respondent filed O.P.No. 91 of 1999, in the Family Court, Secunderabad, and obtained a decree for judicial separation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OP.No. 534 of 2002, in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for divorce, against the respondent. On a Transfer C.M.P. filed by the respondent, the OP. was transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, and renumbered as OP.No. 369 of 2004.2. After the OP. was transferred, the respondent filed I.A.No. 1154 of 2004, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), claiming maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month, for her girl child. Through its order dated 28-1 -2005, the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-per month, as maintenance, for the child. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.3. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 24 of the Act provides ...
B. Anusuya Vs. P. Konda and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1557; 2005(5)ALT764
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Extensive protection, some times threatens the very existence of what is sought to be protected. This revision presents an instance of that nature.2. The husband of the petitioner died in an accident, in the year 1995. Herself and her daughter, by name Swarnalatha, filed O.P.No. 180 of 1995, in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Ranagareddy District. On the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties to that O.P., the Lok Adalat passed a consent award for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, was paid to the petitioner and her daughter. Out of the balance of Rs. 2,10,000/-, Rs. 1,05,000/- each, was directed to be kept in fixed deposit, in the name of the petitioner and her daughter, for a period of 30 months. The amount covered by fixed deposit, in favour of the daughter of the petitioner, was permitted to be withdrawn, at the time of her marriage. The fixed de...
B. Rajeshwar Rao Vs. G.B. Tilak
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD344; 2005(5)ALT742; I(2007)BC518
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner filed OS No. 120 of 2002, in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,21,000/-against the sole respondent, by having recourse to the proceedings under Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C. The trial Court issued summons to the respondent. Since he did not turn up within 10 days from the date of service of summons, it passed a Judgment and Decree dated 11-6-2002, under Rule 2 of Order 37.2. The respondent filed IA No. 1929 of 2003 under Rule 4, Order 37 CPC, to set aside the decree dated 11-6-2002. He pleaded that the summons issued by him indicated as though he was required to appear before the trial Court on 7-6-2002 and being under that impression, he approached the Court with a vakalat on 7-6-2002, but he was informed of the fact that the vakalat cannot be received at that stage. He pleaded that, on realizing that the procedure under Order 37 was invoked, an application was filed, to set aside t...
E.K. Rao Vs. Apsrtc, Rep. by Its Regional Manager and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT238; [2006(109)FLR68]
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferring the decasualisation of the petitioner for a period of two years, vide proceedings dated 21-9-2001, which was modified to the extent of one year vide proceedings dated 26-4-2002 besides treating the period of absence as not on duty is contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C. (CCA) Regulations, illegal and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside insofar as it went against the petitioner in imposing the punishment in the interest of justice by consequently directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as driver from 17-3-1998 and worked till 2-1-2001 without any blemish and due to double duties; he fell sick and absented from duties by producing the sick certificates from the private doctors. Without considering the same, he was charge-sheeted on the allegations of unauthorized absenc...
C.M.R. Velu and ors. Vs. Convenor, Eamcet 2005, Jntu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD324; 2005(4)ALT588
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. All these writ petitions are inter-connected and they relate to EAMCET-2005; hence they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Entrance test for admission into Engineering, Agricultural and Medical courses was held in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 29-4-2005. Initial key answers were issued on 12-5-2005 calling for objections from the students who attended the examination and from all other corners including experts and academicians to be submitted on or before 19-5-2005. The final key committee consisting of a set of subject experts met on 21-5-2005 and prepared the final key answers after good deal of deliberations on the subject basing on the standard material and also by considering objections. The final key answers recommended/prepared by the final key committee has been approved by the high level EAMCET committees considering of Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Commissioner of Technical Educatio...
Kuchanapalli Neelama and ors. Vs. Deekonda Sadanandam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD223; 2005(6)ALT60
L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Defendants in O.S. No. 207 of 1994, on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, are the appellants. The respondents filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property of 324 Sq. yards in Warangal Town, recovery of possession thereof and for award of mesne profits, at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, from the date of institution of the suit.2. The suit was initially filed by the respondents 1 to 3, who are the sons of late Deekonda Ramachandram. During the pendency of the suit, the third respondent died, and his legal representatives, respondents 4 to 11, were brought on record. Appellants 1 and 2 figured as defendants. On account of the death of the second appellant, his legal representatives, appellants 3 to 7, were brought on record.3. The respondents filed the suit pleading that late Ramachandram purchased the suit schedule property, through a sale deed dated 27-5-1960, marked as Ex....
B. Suresh Babu Vs. Pogula Sivasankara Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD307
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the Counsel representing the revision petitioner, and Sri Veera Reddy, the Counsel representing the respondent.2. The landlord-5. Suresh Babu aggrieved by the reversing order made in C.M.A. No. 5/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, which was preferred as against the order of eviction made in R.C.C. No. 2/97 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, had preferred the present C.R.P. The ground on which the landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant is bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 to 4, and marked Exs.B.1 to B.15 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the landlord requires the premises bona fide and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein-the tenant in the aforesaid R.C.C., filed C.M.A. No. 5/2000, which was reversed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »