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.
The Gun-rock Enclave Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. P. Ranganaya ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)709; 2005CriLJ4591
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This Criminal Petition is tiled to quash the order dated 9-3-2005 in Crl. M.P. No. 869 of 2004 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in Crime No. 173 of 2004 of Karkhana Police Station.2. It is stated in the petition that the first respondent Smt. P. Ranganayakamma filed a private complaint before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioners herein alleging that her husband has purchased a plot bearing No. :23 admeasuring 464 Sq. yards in Sy. No, 157/ 8, situated at Thokatta village, Secunderabad vide registered document No. 2581/1984, dated 15-10-1984 and her 'husband died on 18-8-1990 and therefore, she became the owner of the said property; The second petitioner is the President of the Gun-Rock Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad and the said ' society cancelled the registration without assigning any reason vide document No. 838/2001, dated 17-5-2001 in the office of Sub -Registrar, Bowenpal...
Kanakadhara Constructions Vs. K. Jhansi Lakshmi Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD805; 2005(6)ALT679
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order, dated 17-6-2005, passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 637 of 2005 and I.A. No. 774 of 2005 in O.S. No. 709 of 2005.2. The unsuccessful second respondent in I.A. No. 637 of 2005, the petitioner in I.A. No. 774 of 2005, is the revision petitioner.3. The first respondent herein laid the suit in O.S. No. 709 of 2005 for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act'). Her case as averred, inter alia, in the plaint seems to be that one Sumanth Kale (R2) was the owner and possessor of the land as described in schedule appended to the plaint. He sold the said land in favour of his wife and one Smt. Vijaya Bowgikar jointly under registered sale deed, dated 29-6-1985. The vendees in turn sold the property in her favour under registered sale deed dated 20-6-2001 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The...
K. Ram Reddy Vs. Station Commandant and Executive Officer, Cantonment ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT697
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J.1. A show cause notice has been issued to the writ petitioner-appellant in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He challenged the said notice in the writ petition, which has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal.2. We feel that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, and all defences, which are available to the appellant, can be taken before the Estate Officer. Even if the appellant is not able to satisfy the Estate Officer, an appeal is available against the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer.3. In these circumstances, we do not think it is necessary for us to intervene in the matter at this stage. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the time to give a reply to show cause notice ends to day. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we grant two weeks time to the appellant to file a reply to the show cause notice. For a period of two weeks from today, appellant may not be evicted.4. Writ Appeal ...
Mechineni Chokka Rao and ors. Vs. Sattu Sattamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD116
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-11-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No. 726 of 2004 in O.S. No. 27 of 2000.2. The unsuccessful respondents/ defendants are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein filed initially the suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners seeking to restrain them from trespassing or interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land covered by survey No. 522 ad measuring 22 guntas situate at Gangadhara Mandal of Karimnagar District. The trial in the suit having been concluded and after having heard arguments, the suit stood adjourned for judgment. At that stage, the respondent herein filed LA. No. 726 of 2004 seeking leave to amend the plaint mentioning inter alia that she having purchased the suit schedule mentioned land under a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1997 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs from one E. B...
S. Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Margadarsi Chit Funds Limited and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD49
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal on 26-8-2004 in E.A. No. 215 of 2004 in E.P. No. 135 of 2004, by which the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking stay of attachment was negatived.2. The brief facts, which led to filing of this revision, are that originally, the petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 454 of 1997, which was filed by the 1st respondent-Chit Fund Company for realization of certain amounts on the ground that the 1st petitioner is a prized subscriber and a defaulter. On contest, the suit was decreed as prayed for in favour of the 1st respondent. While so, when the decree was ordered to be executed, the present application is filed under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of attachment stating that under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Agricultural Debts (Moratorium) Act, 2004 (for brevity 'the Act, 2004'), the Court shall not e...
Nirneetha (Regd No. 6673 of 2000) Rep. by Its Chairman, T.K. Sreedhar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALT559
ORDERBilal Nazki, A.C.J.1. This is a petition filed in public interest by petitioner-Voluntary organization, represented by an Advocate of this Court. Following reliefs have been claimed:1. direct respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate steps for the improvement of the quality of legal education;2. direct respondents 9 to 16 to take all necessary steps to make the members of the faculty to attend classes and to address the students;3. direct the teachers not to mark 'attendance' to such students who do not attend the classes;4. direct the university authorities to keep a watch on the performance of each and every teacher to ensure attendance of students and to ensure quality of teaching;5. issue directions to the principals of the colleges to send the names of such teachers, who fail to attend the classes regularly and who mark the attendance to the students who do not attend classes;6. issue necessary directions to the concerned universities to withdraw the hostel facilities and schola...
Yedida Sri Ram Kumar Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD74; 2005(6)ALT569
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in granting permission to the 4th respondent to establish a shop in Ward No. 4 of Kakinada Municipal Corporation for sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor without conducting any public auction as prescribed under the law as arbitrary and illegal.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under :3. In pursuance of Auction Notification dated 26-5-2005 issued by the District Collector, East Godavari inviting tenders from the intending tenderers for grant of lease of right to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor by shop for a period of one year i.e., from 1-7-2005 to 30-6-2006 in the Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, the writ petitioner has participated and he was declared as the successful bidder in respect of Shop-C in Ward No. 5.4. It is not in dispute that so far as Ward No. 4 is concerned, no shop was notified and consequently no auction was conducted for grant of leas...
Raju Vs. Gaddam Raja Sekhar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT49; IV(2006)BC106
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Rajesham, the counsel representing the revision petitioner.2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20-7-2005 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which had been subsequently extended. The respondent was duly served and none represents the respondent.3. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 575 of 2005 in O.S. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to send the suit promissory note to the Government Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the signature with the other handwriting of the suit promissory note. The application was dismissed on the ground that there is no possibility of comparison of age of the ink in view of using ball point pen ink in drafting the pronote and hence no purpose would be served by sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison with regard to the age of the ink. The learned Judge also observed that the application is not maintainable. Though wrong ...
Gannamanthi Pedda Subbaiah Vs. Chittepu Narayana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP89; 2005(6)ALT198
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.The twin contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Venkataramana Reddy, are as hereunder:1. The learned Counsel would submit that prior to proclamation, no opportunity had been given to the revision petitioner-judgment debtor to state his valuation. The learned Counsel also would submit that even if the respondent-decree holder is a secured creditor, the official receiver should again be put on notice or should have been impleaded as party to the execution proceedings. On both the grounds, the learned Counsel would maintain that the revision petitioner-judgment debtor is bound to succeed in the civil revision petition.2. The present civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-judgment debtor in E.P.No. 112 of 2003 in O.S.No. 62 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. This Court ordered notice before admission on 12-8-2005 and also granted interim stay for a limited period. The notice was duly served on respo...
M. Vikuratan Vs. Mahender Kumar Gandhi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD439
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri Satyanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner; made the following submissions :2. The learned Counsel would maintain that the revision petitioner is an unfortunate tenant, hereinafter referred to as tenant, who had been successful in the prior litigation which was filed on the ground of wilful default by the self-same landlord, relating to the schedule premises and again on the self-same ground, the present eviction petition had been thought of by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as landlord, for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel also would 'maintain that the explanation given by the tenant is so natural and convincing that in view of the longstanding intimacy between the parties, quite often at irregular intervals, he had been collecting rents and subsequent thereto just to make it a ground for eviction, the landlord was reluctant to receive the rents. The learned Counsel would also explain that the landlord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »