Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Narsai Highway Filling Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD785; 2005(5)ALT520
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Narsai Highway Filling Station represented by its proprietor S.M.Sushil Kumar with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent in relying upon the test Report dated 22-6-2005 and directing the petitioner to stop the sales as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Petroleum Rules, 2002 and Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order 1990 and amendment Order 1993.2. The proprietor of the petitioner Oil Filling Station has given his sworn affidavit in support of the writ petitioner. The case of the writ petitioner as set out in the affidavit be summarized, in brief, is as follows:3. The petitioner is a dealer of respondent company pertaining to MS, HSD and Lubricant Oils. The Mobile Lab of the respondent Corporation visited the petitioner Petrol Bunk on 22-6-2005 and collected sample of High Speed Diesel for testing. The Mobile...
Atufa Travels, Travel Agency, Rep. by Sri HussaIn BIn Abdullah, S/O. A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD305
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below had preferred the C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, here-in-after, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). Respondent herein (here-in-after referred as 'landlady') filed R.C. No. 599/97 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground that the tenant ceased to occupy the scheduled premises. On the ground of ceasing to occupy the scheduled premises or securing alternative accommodation, the learned Rent Controller negatived the same, but however, on the ground of wilful default, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.A. No. 278/99 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was confirmed and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.2. Sri Vilas V Afzulpurkar, the learned Counsel re...
Veluru Venkateswara Reddy, S/O. Chelama Reddy Vs. Kota Venkatachalam, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT386
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.C.M.A. No. 89/94 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-Appellate Authority, Vijayawada, had preferred the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (here-in-after, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, the Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the Counsel representing the respondent.3. Submissions were made by both the Counsel. The Counsel for Revision Petition attacking the impugned Order on the ground that despite the remand, the evidence on record was not appreciated in proper perspective and on the contrary, the learned Counsel for respondent supporting the reason which had been recorded by the Appellate Authority by pointing out to the relevant portions of the impugned Order.4. The respondent herein (here-in-after referred to as 'landlord' for the purpose of conveni...
Dara Namassivaya and ors. Vs. Veturi Ratnalamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD633; 2005(6)ALT118
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Bhaskara Laxmi, the Counsel for the appellants-defendants and Sri V. V.L.N. Sarma, the Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff.2. Sri Satyanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel had taken this Court through the recitals of Ex.A.1 and would contend that the said document does not specify carrying of any interest. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Ex.A.2, being an un-registered agreement, is inadmissible and even otherwise, the same was not acted upon. The learned Counsel also would contend that this cannot be treated as contemporaneous agreement. In the case of breach regarding possession, the mortgagee may have to file a suit under Section 68(1)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would submit that the suit for recovery of money is barred by time and had referred to ...
Ruchita Sanghi and anr. Vs. D. Atchuta Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP463; 2005(5)ALT405; I(2006)BC560
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 2722 of 2004 in the Court of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for recovery of certain amount. They invoked the procedure under Order 37 C.P.C. On receipt of summons, the respondent herein entered appearance within the stipulated time. Thereupon, the petitioners took out 'summons for judgment' as required under Rule 3 of that Order. In response, the respondent filed I.A. No. 1785 of 2004 seeking permission to defend the suit. Through its order, dated 12-10-2004, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order under revision does not disclose any reasons as to whether the Court was satisfied that there exists a triable issue and that in the absence of the same, permission ought not to have been granted to the respondent. He further contends that no opportunity, as such, was give...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›