Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Anitha Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD723; 2005(5)ALT576
ORDERG. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. The petitioner is the wife. She filed this petition seeking transfer of M.C. No. 6/2005 filed by the respondent, who is her husband, for restitution of conjugal rights, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.D.N.), Sadam, Gulbarga District, Karnataka to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition, the petitioner stated that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 16-6-2002 and as her mother-in-law and brother-in-law harassed her mentally and physically and demanded dowry, on 26-3-2004 she was constrained to leave the company of the respondent and go to her parents. The petitioner is presently residing in her brother's house. As the petitioner was harassed, she filed criminal case No. 445/2004 under Section 498-A I.P.C. on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. It is stated that as the petitioner was unable to maintain herself, filed M.C. No. 38/20...
L. Nagi Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT325; 2005(3)ARBLR607(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since al the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are interrelated and arise out of a common order and decree, dated 10-12-2004, in O.P. Nos. 228 of 2002 and 66 of 2003, respectively, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 816 of 2005 and C.M.A. (S.R) No. 27387 of 2005 are the Railways, respondent No. 1 is the claimant and respondent No. 2 is the Arbitrator. While the appellant in C.M.A. Nos. 410 of 2005 and 875 of 2005 is the claimant, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is the Railways and respondent No. 4 is the Arbitrator.4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties will be referred to as 'the Railways' and 'the claimant' and 'the Arbitrator'.5. C.M.A. No. 816 of 2005 and C.M.A.(S.R.) No. 27387 of 2005 are filed by the Railways challenging the common order and decrees in O.P. Nos. 66 of 2003 and 228 of 2002, respectively, passe...
Smt. Iffath Jamalunnisa Vs. Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD131; 2005(6)ALT606; I(2006)DMC788; II(2006)DMC107NULL
P. Swaroop Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the Family Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No. 189 of 1995 (The suit was originally filed in the Court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as O.S.No. 293 of 1989 and on its transfer to the Family Court, Hyderabad, it is re-registered as O.S.No. 189 of 1995). The suit was filed for divorce and Mehar amount of Rs. 1.00 Lakh. The present appellant-wife was the plaintiff and the respondent-husband was the defendant. In this appeal, the parties would be referred to, as they are arrayed in the original suit.2. Necessary facts are as follows: The marriage between the parties took place on 25-12-1975; shortly after the marriage, there were misunderstandings between the spouses; two children - a son and a daughter were born on 13-7-1997 and 27-12-1981 respectively. From October 1984, onwards, the parties, admittedly, are living separate and not lived together for any length of time thereafter. The husband filed O.P...
Principal Secretary to Govt. (Poll.) General Admn., Dept. Vs. G. Rames ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD810; 2006(1)ALT441
T. Meena Kumari, J1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Department aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-2-2005 in O.A.No. 6157 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.2. The above said O.A was filed by the respondent-applicant to direct the petitioner-Department to promote him as Assistant Secretary by holding the action of the petitioner-Department in denying him the promotion permanently on the ground that the respondent-applicant refused to join when he was promoted earlier to the said post as illegal and to set aside the Proceedings in Memo dated 25-5-2002 and also G.O. Ms. No. 123 dated 14-3-2001.3. It is the case of the respondent-applicant that he is working as a Section Officer in the Energy Department. While so, he was promoted as Assistant Secretary against a leave vacancy through G.O. Rt. No. 4515 dated 14-10-2001, in which post, he did not join and that now, he is not being considered for promotion on the ground that his right t...
Kodipaka Venkatesham Vs. Pasula Narsamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD437; 2005(6)ALT702
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No. 19 of 2004, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. They are represented through General Power of Attorney, by name Pasula Kistaiah. The petitioner is the sole defendant in that suit. The trial of the suit commenced.2. The G.P.A. of respondents 1 and 2 filed an affidavit, in lieu of his chief-examination. Simultaneously, he filed I.A.No. 43 of 2005, under Order 26 Rule 1, read with Section 151 C.P.C., for appointment of a Commissioner, to record his cross-examination. He pleaded that he has undergone heart operation, and was advised bed rest, for six months. The petitioner opposed the application, by filing a counter affidavit. Apart from denying the alleged health condition of the GPA of respondents, they have also raised an objection, as to his competence to depose as P.W.1. Through its order, dated 21-4-2005, the trial...
C. Laxmi Devi Vs. S. Abdul Rahiman and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT4
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri.2. The matter is coming up for admission to-day. The only contention raised by the counsel for revision petitioner is that by virtue of the order made by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2225 of 2005 dated 4-7-2005, the application for amendment of plaint could not have been allowed. The learned counsel pointed out to certain portions of the impugned order and would contend that virtually the learned Judge thought of allowing the application only in the light of the report and the sketch of Deputy Inspector of Survey and the said order was called in question by way of C.R.P. aforesaid and the same was set aside by this Court and hence, this would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. Incidentally the learned counsel also had pointed out to several other factual details.3. The respondents herein, in I.A. No. 690 of 2005 in O.S. No. 796 of 2001 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed the aforesaid applicatio...
Sri Satya Winery and Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC399(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This batch of tax revision cases, special appeals and the writ petition are at the instance of the dealers directed against the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and that of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) respectively where the claims of the dealers as to the exigibility of the tax to the packing material, containers, viz., bottles and cartons at the rates specified in the respective entries in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity 'the Act'). As common issue is involved in all these tax revision cases, special appeals and the writ petition, they are being disposed of by this common judgment for the sake of convenience. 2. The dealers in these cases are either the distributors, wholesalers or retailers of liquor and beer. They were purchasing the liquor and beer filled in bottles and packed in cartons from the manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, etc. The liquor and beer ar...
G. Jagadish Vs. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT229
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order, dated 23-3-2005 passed in O.A.No. 168 of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein has filed O.A.No. 168 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad challenging the order File No. 33/8/201 -DRT (H)/52, dated 31 -1 -2005 issued by the Presiding Officer., Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad where under the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as peon in the office of the respondent under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and worked as such from 15-11 -2001 till the date of his termination i.e. 31 -1 -2005. 4. It was contended by the petitioner before theTribunal that he was appointed as peon in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad on 15-11-2001 and subsequently the applicant was placed on probation w...
Varikoti Nagaraju and anr. Vs. Varikoti Bhadraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP86; 2005(6)ALD145; 2005(6)ALT55
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Though the matter is listed under the caption 'Interlocutory', with consent of both parties, the main civil miscellaneous appeal itself is heard and disposed of by this judgment.3. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 6-7-2005, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal, disposing of the application LA. No. 126 of 2004 in O.S. No. 4 of 2004, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from in any way alienating the petition schedule properties or inducting third parties into the petition schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.4. The appellants are plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are defendant Nos. 6, 14, 15 and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are defendant Nos. 16 to 19, respectively.5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellants, respondent Nos. l to 3 and respondent Nos. ...
Dr. N. Ram Gopal Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD255; 2005(6)ALT210
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Appointment of the 3rd respondent, as Assistant Professor of Indian Medicine in S.V. Ayurvedic College, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, (for short T.T.D.'), vide proceedings dated 18-6-1994, is questioned in this writ petition as being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Public Employment Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order, 1975, notified in G.O. Ms. No. 674, dated 20-10-1975.2. The facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the 2nd respondent issued an advertisement on 14-9-1993 inviting applications for two posts of Assistant Professors in S.V. Ayurveda College and Hospital run by the T.T.D. One of these two posts was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Three candidates were called for interview on 22-1-1994, viz., the petitioner, the third respondent and one Dr. N. Chanda. While the petitioner was the only Scheduled Tribe candidate from Zone-IV, (comprising of Chittoor, Ananthapur, Cuddapah and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »