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. Papadu Vs. Golagana Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD318
L. Narsimha Reddy, J.1.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 90 of 1991, on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against the respondents, in respect of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.3-00 in Sy.No. 16/4 of Derasam Village.2. The appellant pleaded that his grandfather, by name Kolagana Pydayya, was the owner of the land in Sy.No. 16/4, admeasuring Ac.22-60 cents and out of it, he gave Ac.5-00 to one of his sons, Narsimhulu. The appellant is one of the three sons of Narasimhulu and in the family partition, he is said to have been allotted Ac.3-00 of land, in Sy.No. 16/4 and that his other brothers were allotted the remaining Ac.2-00 of land, in that survey number and other properties held by Narasimhulu. He pleaded that the ownership of Pydayya was recognized, through important documents, such as fair adangal, prepared in the year 1953 and that the possession ...
Murahadi Syyadisyed Sha Syed Mohiddinsha Oulya Rahamtulla Alyhi Darga ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD393
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to implead them as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. In spite of opposition of the revision petitioner, the trial Court, by the order under revision, allowed the said petition and permitted respondents 3 to 5 to come on record as defendants 3 to 5. Hence this revision by the plaintiff in the suit.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit for injunction is filed against respondents 1 and 2 only, respondents 3 to 5, who seek to come on record as defendants are not either necessary nor proper parties to the suit and so the trial Court was in error in allowing the petition. He placed strong reliance on A. Peter Son Israel v. V. Jayaprada and Ors., 2003 (1) An.W.R. 403 (AP) : 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 102, in support of his contention ...
Feno Fiber Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD732; 2005(6)ALT659
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao and the learned Standing Counsel for the respodents- Mr. R.N. Reddy.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27-7-2005 in A.T.A. No. 446 (1) of 2005 of the 1st respondent--Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, it was established in the year 1986 and closed its operations in February, 2003. Admittedly, the petitioner, an industry, could not survive the market competition. According to the petitioner, from 1998 there being a recession in the market, the petitioner could not pay salaries to its employees. It also defaulted in the employees provident fund dues during the period March, 1999 to June, 2002. Eventually, a notice dated 17-7-2003 was issued to the petitioner intimating failure in remitting provident fund contributions/pension fun...
D. Suneetha Vs. Putta Ramanaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP470
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a decree for money obtained by her, revision-petitioner filed an E.P. seeking arrest of the respondent/Judgment Debtor. Respondent filed his counter contending that except the salary being received by him, he has no other source of income and so he cannot be arrested. In support of, her case, revision-petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and the respondent examined himself as R.W. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. The executing Court, after considering the evidence on record, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3.000/- per month on or before 3rd of every succeeding month and directed his arrest in the event of the respondent's tailure to pay the instalments. Hence, this revision by the decree holder.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since executing Court has no power to grant instalments, the order under revision is unsustainable.3. Though served respondent did not put in his appearance.4. I ...
Pampa Hotels Ltd. Vs. A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Aptdc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD43; 2005(6)ALT37
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. By this application, filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant, namely M/s. Pampa Hotels Limited, represented by its Managing Director, prays this Court to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes, which have arisen out of an agreement dated 30-3-2002, entered into between the applicant and the respondent.2. In response to the Notification dated 2-12-2000, issued by the respondent, namely M/s. Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited (APTDC), inviting bids for development and management of a Three Star Hotel at Alipiri, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, M/s. Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, which submitted its bid, was found to be the highest bidder. M/s. Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, for the purpose of implementation of the said project, it is averred, has promoted and got incorporated the applicant as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to its incorporation, the applican...
Mohd. Kaleemullah Vs. Mohd. Azizullah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD303
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 12 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, against the respondents for partition. All the seven defendants impleaded therein were served. Defendants 1 to 6 entered appearance on receiving the summonses. However, the 7th defendant, by name Khaja Sirajuddin remained ex parte. At a later point of time, he died. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 268 of 2004 under Rule 4(4) of Order XXII CPC to exempt him from bringing the legal representatives of the 7th defendant on record. The trial Court rejected the application through its order dated 11-2-2005. Hence, this revision.2. Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of enacting Rule 4(4) of Order XXII CPC was to exempt the plaintiff in a suit from bringing on record, the legal representatives of a defendant, who remained ex parte and died later, and the rejection of the application of the petitioner is contr...
Ravula Needlamma Vs. Sandaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD295
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Smt. Ravula Neelamma represented by her G.P.A. holder Sri Bala Mallesh, filed the present revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) aggrieved by the order of eviction made on the ground of wilful default in R.C.C. No. 345 of 1998 on the file of Second Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad as confirmed in R.A. No. 2 of 2001 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.2. The respondent in the CRP is the landlord. Hereinafter the parties would be referred to as the landlord and tenant for the purpose of convenience. The landlord, as the owner of the premises in question filed the R.C.C. No. 345 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad praying for eviction stating that he purchased the property by virtue of Registered Sale deed dated 23-12-1996 from Sri K. Pandit and the r...
National thermal Power Corporation Limited Vs. Prefab Granites Limited ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD135; 2005(6)ALT347; 2006(1)ARBLR399(AP)
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This case has a chequered history.2. Parties to the present appeal invoked the arbitration clause, and got the matter referred to an arbitrator. It is not in dispute that the cause of action for such invocation of arbitration clause arose prior to coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which came into force with effect from 22-8-1996. The award also was passed. To make the award rule of the Court, the appellant herein filed the suit under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the District Court Karimnagar as having jurisdiction. This aspect was also not in dispute nor any objection was taken by the District Court. However, in view of Rule 3 (i) (c) of the Judicial Notification bearing No. 104-A, dated 31-8-2000, issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the District Court returned the papers of the suit to the appellant herein holding that the suit filed by the appellant before the Court below was not maintainable.3. The app...
B. Sai Anand Prasad Vs. Sai Krishna General Stores Rep. by N. Krishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD238; 2005(6)ALT185
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri. Mohd Ghulam Rasool, counsel representing the petitioner landlord and Sri P. Venugopal, counsel representing the tenants.2. These two contempt cases are filed by the landlord as against the respective tenants for non-compliance of the directions made by this Court in C.M.P.No. 523 of 2004 in C.R.P. No. 3332 of 2001 and in C.M.P. No. 547 of 2004 in C.R.P. No. 3520 of 2001 respectively. The said order reads as hereunder:'Heard both sides.Tenant is directed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and agreed so far within one month from today.'3. The grievance of the landlord is that the direction issued by this Court had not been complied with and hence, the landlord is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience.4. Sri. Mohd Ghulam Rasool the learned Counsel representing the petitioner- landlord would contend that in the light o...
Kota Sreevalli and ors. Vs. Chinni Seetharamaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP521; 2005(5)ALD569; 2006(3)ALT215
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 8, in O.S. No. 132 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, are the petitioners. They feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2003, passed in that suit.2. Respondents 1 to 8 filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of as many as 17 pronotes, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-17, executed between 18-7-1994 and 16-5-1996. Most of the pronotes were said to have been executed by a firm, known as 'Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills', of which the petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 are said to be partners. The pronotes were said to have been signed by the then Managing Partner, Mr. Kota Narasimham, who is since dead. The pronotes in turn, were executed, in favour of respondents 1 to 8, with different combinations.3. The petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 raised several objections. They pleaded that the suit was bad for joinder of causes of action, that it was defective, inasmuch as the firm w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »