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.
Jai Singh Vs. Krishna Bai Jaiswal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD281
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri T. V. Rajivan, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.2. The revision petitioner, Jai Singh, brother of 2nd respondent herein/judgment-debtor who is shown to be not a necessary party both before the learned III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and also before this Court filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, being aggrieved of the dismissal of E.A. No. 15/2004 in E.P.No. 9/2004 in R.C.No. 586/97 moved by him before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Rule 23(7) of A.P. Rent Control Rules, 1961, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules' wherein the adjudication of the claim of the petitioner was prayed for with a further prayer to dismiss the E.P. filed by the 1st respondent/D...
Kunchanapalli Mysooraiah Vs. Sub-registrar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP453; 2005(5)ALD581; 2005(5)ALT616
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to deliver the duly completed registered document P.69/2002 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner owns an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.43 cents in S.No. 42-6 2A situated at Kadapa Sahar, Kadapa having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 2-7-1968. The revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass book in his favour and his name has been mutated in adangal. He sold an extent of 0.30 cents out of Ac.1.43 cents to Bepari Abdul Jabbar of Kadapa and he presented a sale deed dated 31-10-2002 to the Joint Registrar, Kadapa for registration. He paid the stamp duty and necessary charges for registration of sale transfer. But the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa has neither registered the sale deed nor returned the document. He retrained the document on...
Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P. Southern Power Distribution ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP460; 2005(5)ALT632
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Second Appeal is coming up for admission today.2. Sri Ramachandra Reddy had lodged a caveat on behalf of R-1 in the appeal-cumplaintiff in the suit.3. Sri Ajay Kumar, standing counsel for A.P. TRANSCO had raised only one substantial question of law which is as hereunder:Whether the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 89 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, as confirmed in A.S.No. 50 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa can be said to be valid and binding on the Transmission Corporation of A.P. or the A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited which came into existence subsequent to the accident in question?4. All other questions which had been canvassed by learned Counsel for the appellant are ancillary or incidental questions.5. The learned Counsel would maintain that the suit was instituted as indigent person in O.P.No. 51 of 1997 which was numbered as O.S.No. 89 of 1998 for recovery of damages. The counsel would ma...
M. Ramesh Vs. Vankadara Sunil Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)442; IV(2006)BC84
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Alleging that cheque dated 11.1.2003 for Rs. 2 lakhs drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, issued by the petitioner on behalf of Ceema Cotton Traders, in his favour, was returned on the ground of 'insufficient funds' and that in spite of his issuing statutory notice on 5.8.2003, informing the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque with a demand for payment, petitioner failed to pay the amount, first respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against the petitioner which was registered as C.C. No. 460 of 2003. This petition is filed to quash the said complaint.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, but not the petitioner, is the proprietor of Ceema Cotton Traders, on whose behalf the cheque was drawn and so petitioner cannot be made liable under Section 138 of the Act.3. The specific case of first respondent, in the complaint, is that pe...
P. Pandit Rao (Died) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. K. Damodar Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD646; 2005(6)ALT140
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 1138 of 1991 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2001 passed by the trial Court.2. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 2nd respondent. They filed the suit against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20-3-1989, marked as Ex.A-1. Respondents pleaded that in the month of June, 1988, the appellants offered to sell the suit schedule property, bearing Municipal Nos. 1-2-65, 1-2-65/1 and 1-2-65/2, admeasuring about 300 Sq. yards, situated at Domalguda, Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is said to have been paid on the date of agreement, and a sum of Rs. 96,000/- on several dates, prior to that. It was alleged that the agreement was entered through their Special Power of Attorney. They pleaded that though they made several requests to the appellants, for...
Dilip Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Bahadurmal Chowdary and Sons. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)171; 3(2006)BC505
T.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The criminal petition is directed against the order dated 9.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in Cri. M.P. No. 5298 of 2004 in C.C. No. 403 of 2001. The petitioners are A.3, A.6, A.8 and A.9 in the above case, which was filed by the first respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity 'the NI Act').2. Certain facts need be stated for brevity and better understanding of the matter: Originally the complaint was filed against A. 1 to A. 9. A. 1 is the company, A. 2 is its Managing Director, and A. 3 to A. 9 are the Directors thereof. Since A. 4 and A. 7 died; the case against them was abated. The case against A. 2 was split up as he had become scarce. Ultimately the case was tried as against A. 1, A. 3, A. 5, A. 6, A. 8 and A. 9, They were permitted to be represented by their Counsel under a special vakalath. Eventually after the closure of evidence arguments in the case we...
Singam Satyanarayana Vs. Election Officer and Deputy Chief Executive O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALD780; 2005(4)ALT645
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since all these petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. For the sake of convenience, I would refer to the parties as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 2471 of 2005.3. Palle Sitaramulu Goud (petitioner), Singam Satyanarayana, (third respondent) who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 18357 of 2004, (Smt.) G. Alivelu, D. Veeraswamy, V. Krishna Murthy, T. Babu and T. Ramu (respondents 4 to 8) and others were elected as Members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) of Shameerpet Mandal held on 3.7.2001. Petitioner and respondents 3 to 8 were elected on Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) Party Ticket. Thereafter petitioner was elected as the President of the Mandal Parishad, Shameerpet Mandal. On the basis of a requisition dated 15-7-2004 given by eleven MPTCs seeking to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner, a special meeting for considering the 'No Confidence Motion' against him was convened by the Deputy Ch...
S.K. Saida (Employer), Supreme Tailors Vs. P. Venkata Narasaiah and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT210
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur, against the petitioner, in I.D.No. 86 of 1991. He claimed to be the employee of the petitioner. The Labour Court passed an award, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the respondent. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No. 5 of 1997, and prayed for the arrest of the petitioner.2. The petitioner resisted the E.P. He pleaded that he filed I.P.No. 7 of 1997, in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, and as along as the I.P. is pending, he cannot be arrested for non-compliance with the decree. The trial Court rejected his plea, and ultimately directed his arrest, through its order dated 5-11-1999.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sub-section (3) of Section 55 C.P.C., casts a duty on the executing court to inform a judgment debtor, who is sought to be arrested, that he can file I.P., and that being the case, there was no justification...
Shaik Gafur Vs. Rajanala Anjananandam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD384
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri N. Ram Mohan Rao, Counsel for appellant and Sri G. Peda Babu, Counsel for respondent.2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No. 88/83 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet filed the present appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the appellant herein/defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet in O.S.No. 88/83 recorded evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, DW-1 to DW-6, marked Exs.A-1 to A-7, Exs.B-1 to B-15 and Ex.X-1 and on appreciation of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the respondent herein/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession and accordingly decreed the suit. Hence the appeal.3. Sri N. Ram Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the Issues settled before the Trial Court and the findings recorded and would contend that though it is...
Bolisetty Vijaya Kumar and ors. Vs. Vadagam Venkata Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD519
L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 469 of 1999, on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, are the appellants.2. The appellants are the lessees in respect of a non-residential premises belonging to the sole respondent. The lease was granted for 18 years, commencing from 1.1.1981, through a registered lease deed dated 11.2.1981. Initially, the rent was Rs. 800/- per month. The lease deed provided for periodical enhancement of rent.3. The respondent issued a notice, dated 6.1.1999, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the lease, and requiring the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants were also notified that if they continued in the premises, even after termination of the lease, they will be under obligation to pay the mesne profits, at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-per month.4. Pleading that the appellants did not vacate the premises, the respondent filed the suit for eviction, as well as for mesne profits. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »