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.
K. Sadhu and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD807; 2005(6)ALT350
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare that the petitioners, who are employees of the 3rd respondent-institution, are part and parcel of the 2nd respondent-Khadi Board and entitled to all the benefits as that of the employees of the 2nd respondent-Board including pension, General Provident Fund etc.2. There is no dispute as to the facts. The petitioners are all employees of Khadi Gramodyog Maha Vidyalaya, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, which was set up by the 2nd respondent in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 146, dated 7-3-1981. Vide G.O. Ms. No. 444, dated 5-8-1981, the State Government sanctioned the necessary staff and the 2nd respondent was directed to fill up the posts by following the Recruitment and Service Conditions Regulations of the 2nd respondent-Board. The service conditions framed under Section 29 of the A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1958 were approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No. 95, dated 17-4-1996. I...
Sanjeevayya Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Vs. S. Malla Red ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT745
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since both the appeals arise out of O.P. No. 138 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellant and the respondents in both the appeals are the plaintiff and defendants in O.P. No. 138 of 2003 before the Court below.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendants', respectively.5. C.M.A. No. 4791 of 2004 is directed against the order, dated 23-11 -2004, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.P. No. 138 of 2003. By that order, the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to declare it as an 'indigent person' and permit it to file the suit 'in forma pauperis', and granted time to the petitioner till 10-12-2004 for payment of court-fee for registering the suit.6....
P. Venkatamma and anr. Vs. Dontham Sulochana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP92; 2005(6)ALD211; 2005(6)ALT789
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., by the defendants in O.S. No. 85 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda. Respondent filed that suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 95,175/-, with interest.2. Respondent pleaded that she sold an extent of Ac.6.38 guntas of land in Sy. No. 357 of Nalgonda, to the 1st appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- in March 1991. It was her case that few months thereafter, the appellants approached her for a loan of Rs. 1,95,500/-, for developing a mango garden in the land purchased by them. Respondent is said to have lent that amount, after obtaining promissory notes, executed by the 1st appellant, with the 2nd appellant, figuring as surety.3. It was stated that the 1st appellant did not repay the amount even after two years, and that the matter was taken to the elders, viz., Gutha Mohan Reddy, Azaz Ahmed Asgar, B. Saidulu and G. Raju. They are said to have brought about a settlement, accordin...
Vipperla Nageswar Rao Vs. Vipperla Sridevi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD505; 2006(2)ALT135
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 585 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam is the appellant. The 2nd respondent is his brother.2. The 1st respondent filed the suit against the appellant and the 2nd respondent, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Ac. 1.33 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 95 and 109 of Raghunadhapalem Village of Khammam Urban Mandal and District. She pleaded that she is the daughter of one V. Mangaiah through his second wife and that during his life time, he executed a will, dated 13-9-1990, bequeathing the suit schedule property in her favour. She pleaded that the appellant and the 2nd respondent, who are the sons of Mangaiah through his first wife, started interfering with her possession of the property.3. The suit was resisted by the appellant alone. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. He pleaded that his mother late Ramulamma alone was married to his father-Mangaiah...
G. Parvatha Reddy Vs. Boya Nargarjuna @ Nagarjuna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT146
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 33 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. The respondent herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction, inter alia, alleging that he raised a hut and stone fencing in Survey No. 483-A5, that he is residing in the hut with his wife and minor children and that the defendant, who is inimical to him, is threatening to remove the hut with force. He also filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), being I.A. No. 97 of 2005, for ad interim injunction. The learned trial Judge on 26-9-2003 passed the order, which reads as follows:Heard. Admittedly the schedule site is a poramboke land. The counsel for the plaintiff argued the schedule site is poramboke and the plaintiff constructed a hut and in possession of remaining site, the defendant, without having any manner of right, went to remove the schedule property. Hence interim injunction ...
Munganda Venkataratnam Vs. Joint Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD547; 2006(2)ALT44
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since all these petitions are filed questioning the observation made by the Joint Collector, West Godavari District (1st respondent in all the petitions) in his order dated 5-6-2000 passed in an appeal filed by the petitioners in these petitions jointly as appeal No. 1573 of 1999, these petitions are being disposed of by a common Order. W.P.No. 19906 of 2000 is filed by M. Venkataratnam W.P.No. 19907 of 2000 is filed by S. Tulasi Rao, W.P. No. 19908 of 2000 is filed by T. Venkataratnam, and W.P.No. 19909 of 2000 is filed by M. Subba Rao, who, according to the record, are interrelated. Though they jointly filed an appeal before the Collector, they for their own reasons, filed these petitions separately on the same day.2. The undisputed facts in these petitions are, on a representation submitted to him by S.L. Satyanarayana of Chintalapudi, alleging that his brother S. Tulasi Rao, (petitioner in W.P. No. 19907 of 2000), a retired Tahsildar, had obtained benami ...
Pch Business Vs. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Ct), Gov ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC104(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Notwithstanding the strenuous contentions urged by Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not persuaded to accept any one of the contentions.2. The impugned order dated July 28, 2005 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated July 21, 2005 to extend the time for submitting claim for sales tax credit is perfectly in conformity with Rule 37(2)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which reads as follows :(h) a claim for sales tax credit shall be submitted to the authority prescribed within ten days from the date of commencement of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner may, having regard to the circumstances permit the VAT dealer to make the claim after the said ten days but not later than thirty days from the date of commencement of the Act. The approval of the claim for sales tax credit shall be issued on form VAT 116 not later than ninety days from the da...
G. Munirathnam Naidu Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT766
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 111 of 1967 on the file of the learned erstwhile Subordinate Judge. Tirupati. It came to be filed under certain extraordinary circumstances.2. The Petitioner filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession against respondents 3 to 5 (for short 'the respondents'). A preliminary decree was passed on 17-10-1970, where under the petitioner was held to be entitled to 2/3rd share and the respondents, to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The respondents filed A.S.No. 556 of 1970 before this Court assailing the preliminary decree. The appeal is said to have been partly allowed, sustaining the preliminary decree in all respects, but restricting it to certain items of the suit schedule property.3. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 14 of 1971 in the trial Court for the final decree proceedings. It is stated that during the course of final decree proceedings, the well wishers of ...
S. Suvarnamma Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT780
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below against the Judgment and Decree dated 22-3-2004 made in A.S.No. 57 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 11-6-2002 made in O.S.33 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No. 33 of 1997.3. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.4. The defendants are the officials of APSEB. The appellant-plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that the notice dated 9-2-1996 issued by the defendants to pay the arrears of Rs. 12,420/- as illegal and void and for damages with interest thereon and also for a mandatory injunction for restitution of service connection in S.C.No. 12254.5. The brief averments in the plaint are as hereunder:The plaintiff is the proprietary concern r...
Sarfraz Baig Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD893
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This petition is filed to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the petition to recall the judgment in S.A.No. 308 of 1992, dated 3-9-2003.2. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 138 of 1987 seeking correction of his date of birth in the records of the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court. In S.A. No. 308 of 1992 preferred by the respondent, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, after hearing the Counsel for the respondent (appellant), this Court, by the judgment dated 3-9-2003, set aside the decrees and judgments of the Courts below and dismissed the suit. On 25-4-2005 petitioner filed a petition to recall the judgment dated 3-9-2003 in the SA No. 308 of 1992 along with this petition to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the recall petition.3. The allegations, in brief, in the affidavit of the petitioner, filed in support of this application are, when the second appeal c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »