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.
Sakibanda Varada Reddy Vs. Joint Collector-cum-settlement Officer and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD799; 2005(6)ALT699
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Alleging that the Zamindar of Punganur granted patta in his name in respect of Ac.0.80 cents in S.No. 129 and Ac.0.20 cents in S.No. 119 of Eguvapalli Village, on 15.4.1943 and that after Punganur Estate was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act 1948 ('the Act'), since the said land was wrongly classified as poromboke land in the revenue records, he, who has been continuing in possession of the aforesaid one acre of land, had made an application under Section 11(a) of the Act to the Settlement Officer on 20.10.1986 in RC.F.80/87 for grant of Ryotwari patta in respect of that land, and when the Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer (respondents) along with others tried to interfere with his possession over the tamarind trees in S.No. 129, he filed O.S.No. 89 of 1987, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Punganur for declaration of his title and injunction and that the said suit was partly decreed o...
Shaik Abdul Salam Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)647; 2006CriLJ22
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Assailing the judgment dated 31-1-2000 passed in CC No. 12 of 1996 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count, the sole accused preferred this criminal appeal.2. The case of the prosecution In nutshell is that the appellant, who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District (hereinafter referred as the Accused Officer) on 17-9-1995 along with his staff surprised the house of P.W. 1 at Amakathadu village and banned his son Pedda Shall Saheb, on the pretext that he has been selling jaggery to the persons manufacturing illicit distillers, to...
Sri Harsha Constructions Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD287; 2005(5)ALT728; 2006(1)ARBLR308(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 8-4-2005, passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition in O.P. No. 72 of 2003, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') seeking to set aside the Award, dated 21-9-2002, passed by the Arbitrator.3. The appellant herein is the respondent No. 1, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 herein is the respondent No. 2 respectively in O.P. No. 72 of 2003 before the Court below.4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant, the respondents 1 to 3 and the respondent No. 4 will be referred to as 'the contractor', the 'Railways' and 'the Arbitrator', respectively.5. The contractor is the successful tenderer for certain Railway works, particulars of which are not relevant. An agreement was entered into, which contains a clause to the effect that when...
Voltas Limited, Hyderabad Unit Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD157; 2006(1)ALT179
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by M/s Voltas Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, claiming two separate reliefs, under different provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, with its registered office at Mumbai. It had manufacturing units and sale network, across the country. The petitioner undertakes manufacture of Air Conditioners, Refrigerators, Coolers, and the other related engineering equipment. One of its manufacturing units is located at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. In the recent past, it has taken over the Refrigeration Division of Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., a State-owned public sector undertaking.3. Citing the problems that devolved upon the petitioner, on account of take over of M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. and loss of business, due to heavy competition from other agencies, operating the same field, the petitioner proposed to re...
J. Satyasri Rambabu Vs. Smt. A. Anasuya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP529; 2005(6)ALD389; 2005(5)ALT702
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13-6-2005 in LA. No. 731 of 2005 in l.A.No. 486 of 2005 in O.S.No. 149 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad.2. The brief facts are as under:The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/revision petitioner from interfering with the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land was described as Ac.2.20 guntas situated in Sy. No. 226 and another extent of Ac.0.18 guntas situated in Sy. No. 227 of Sarangapur village of Nizamabad District. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 486 of 2005 seeking temporary injunction. It is not in dispute that initially the Court below granted ad-interim injunction. Subsequently on behalf of the defendant a memo dated 7-5-2005 was filed undertaking that he will not interfere with the property of the plaintiffs and that he would carry out...
Venkateswara Rao and Co. and ors. Vs. Bhogavalli Rajeswararao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT137
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The tenants preferred this revision aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in allowing the I.A. No. 1063 of 2005 in RCC No. 11 of 1995 filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises where the landlords are doing business and to note down the physical features.2. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated that respondents/ landlords filed the above RCC for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement in which on conclusion of the trial, arguments were heard on 2-11-2001 and posted for further arguments. At that stage landlords filed two applications-I.A. Nos. 2359 and 2633 of 2001 to re-open the RC and to re-call P.W.1 for further examination and they were allowed on 27-4-2002. Later I.A. No. 133 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner/tenants under Order XIII Rule 2 C...
Raghunath Pershad (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Janaki Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD161
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The plaintiffs filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3-9-1998 in O.S. No. 785 of 1982 on the file of the V-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri S. Bal Chand, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. The suit was initially filed by Raghunath Pershad, represented by his General Power of Attorney (for short GPA) holder, his daughter-plaintiff No. 5-Kumudini Devi. During the pendency of the suit, Raghunath Pershad died, therefore, his legal heirs plaintiffs 1 to 6 his daughters and defendant No. 3 his son were brought on record. The first defendant Janaki Bai is the daughter of Raghunath Per shad's elder brother namely Prithviraj and second defendant is the tenant residing...
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Limited Vs. Tiwari Road Lines
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP1; 2005(6)ALD140; 2005(6)ALT113; 2006(1)ARBLR609(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The order, dated 27-12-2004, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, allowing the petition O.P. No. 2217 of 2003 and appointing a retired Judicial Officer as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties, is under challenge in the present writ petition.3. O.P. No. 2217 of 2003 was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') for appointment of Arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute between the parties.4. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the Court below in O.P. No. 2217 of 2003.5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent is a transporter doing transportation business. The petitioner is a public limited company. Both the parties have their Head Offices at Kolkata. They have their branch offices at Hyderabad also. The respondent has to transport the material to different parts of the county as req...
K. Munirathnam Naidu Vs. K. Aadi Lakshmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD534
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1996 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in suit O.S. No. 205 of 1987 in directing the partition, the third defendant preferred this appeal.2. Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the appellant; Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7.3. The respondents 5 to 7 are the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. The suit filed by the first respondent herein in O.S. No. 205 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff putting her in separate possession and enjoyment, was decreed preliminarily directing the partit...
incomm Tele Limited (Formerly Arm Limited) Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Li ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT642; 2006(1)ARBLR530(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 16-6-2005, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application I.A.No. 801 of 2005 in O.P.No. 739 of 2005, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the alleged excess payments in respect of 28500 CDMA (FWT) sets supplied to the respondents by the petitioner-company, in pursuance of the purchase Order No. CE/PO/009/2002-2003, dated 9-9-2002, pending the final award by the Arbitral Tribunal, as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.3. It is the case of the appellant in the main O.P., that the appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Hyderabad; that it involved in manufacture and supply of various equipments used by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSNL...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »