Andhra Pradesh Court October 2006 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.
Shaik Ghani Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ246
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court by his order D/- 12-4-2006 having noticed the conflict that the judgment of this Court in S. Kareemulla and Ors. v. Prohibition and Excise Sub-inspector, Nandyal and Ors. : 1996(1)ALT953 runs contrary to later judgment of this Court in M. Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997 (2) ALD (Cri) 473 (AP) with regard to release of the vehicle involved in an excise offence by the Magistrate, referred the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.2. The facts giving rise to the reference may briefly be stated thus:The petitioner filed an application in Cri. M. P. No. 453/2001 under Section 451 r/w. 457(1), Cr. P.C., seeking interim custody of the jeep bearing registration No. AP 6174 before the trial Court contending that he was falsely implicated in RR No. 63 of 1998-99 and his jeep was illegally kept in the custody of the respondent without proper maintenance. The learned Magistrate relying upon a judgment of this C...
Punnam Aruna Vs. Election Commission and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD284; 2007(1)ALT138
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 22.8.2006 and an order of status quo made for limited period is being continued from time to time. The counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of R4. The Counsel on record requested for the final disposal of the writ petition.2. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ordering of re-poll is without authority and without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also would submit that though election OP. No. 11 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Parkal already was filed, the question raised in the present writ petition cannot be gone into in the said election O.P., and hence, the present writ petition to be decided on merits. The learned Counsel also pointed out that oral request for the purpose of recounting is not contemplated and apart from the same there are several illegalities and when the statute ordains a particular thing to be d...
Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer) Vs. Maduganti K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD332
A. Gopal Reddy, J. 1. AS No. 43 of 2001 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Karimnagar and AS No. 685/2001 by the claimant are directed against the award dated 19-10-2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to consider as to whether the award and decree under appeals suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, few relevant facts may have to be noticed.3. On the requisition made by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gangadhara dated 15-9-1990, an extent of Ac.6-00 of land in S. No. 60 situate at Gundi Village, Karimnagar District was acquired for the public purpose of establishment of the market yard at Gundi Village. The draft notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') were published in A.P. Gazette dated 12-12-1990 and 13-12-1990 respect...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Singam Atchamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD129; [2007(114)FLR1050]
M. Venkateswara Reddy, J.1. This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against order dated 31-8-1999, made in WC Case No. 57 of 1997, on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nalgonda.2. The insurance company, which is the second respondent before the Commissioner, is the appellant herein.3. Respondents 1 to 6 herein are the claimants before the Commissioner. They claimed compensation for the death of one Singam Pitchaiah, as his dependents. It is not disputed that the said Pitchaiah died in an accident during the course of employment while on duty on 8-10-1994 at about 0630 hours. The 7th respondent herein is his employer owning lorry bearing No. ADB 8467, on which the deceased was working. The appellant does not dispute that the deceased died during the course of employment. The learned Commissioner awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,35,833/-. He has taken the salary as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act i.e., Rs. 1,...
K. Seshalatha and 3 ors. Vs. M.V. Nageswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ152; 2007(1)ALD391; 2007(3)ALT34
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Gopalakrishna, the standing Counsel representing R.2.2. Both the Counsel advanced arguments relating to the correct multiplier to be applied in the facts of the given case and also made certain submissions in relation to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - the Second Schedule and the applicability thereof to the facts of the case.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants would maintain that if the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration in the light of the guidance given by the Second Schedule and Section 163-A of the Act aforesaid, the multiplier to be applied is '15' and however, the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had applied the multiplier of '12' which cannot be sustained. The Counsel representing the appellants had placed reliance on certain decisions.4. The learned sta...
D. Chendrakala and ors. Vs. Matashrama Seva Sangam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD121
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title and for other consequential reliefs in respect of the immovable property said to have been bequeathed to it under a Will said to have been executed by the father of the revision petitioners, respondent filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10B read with Section 151 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to record the evidence of the scribe and attestors of the Will relied on by it at their residences which was allowed by the order under revision in spite of opposition by the revision petitioners. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since execution of the Will by the father of the revision petitioners in favour of the respondent is denied and disputed by the revision petitioners and since the opinion of the expert, to whom the disputed Will was sent, which is available in the Court record, shows that the signatures on the disputed will were not made b...
Apsrtc Vs. K. Andalu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD505
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. One Sri Swayam Prakash was employed as a Chainman in Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. On 11-6-1996, when he was proceeding to office along with one Mr. Ramachandra Raju on a motorcycle bearing No. AIX 4373, near ESI Hospital, Hyderabad, at about 2:45 p.m., a bus bearing No. AP 9Z 5672, owned by the appellant-Corporation, dashed against the motorcycle. Even while Swayam Prakash was being taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment, he died. Crime No. 283 of 1996 under Section 304A I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the Bus. The wife-first respondent, children-respondents 2 to 5 and mother-respondent No. 6 of the deceased filed O.P. No. 1052 of 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 25-1-1999, the Tribunal awarded the claimed amount, together ...
Velivela Vishnu Vardhana Rao Vs. Velivela Durga Prasad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD425; 2007(2)ALT254
D. Appa Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the father against his sons, when a decree for partition was granted on a suit filed by them in O.S. No. 608 of 1995 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.2. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression.3. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant. They constituteundivided Hindu Joint Family. They own the plaint schedule properties, items 1 to 7, various extents of lands and house, situated in various villages, which their father got in partition with his father and brothers. They have been living with their mother as she was driven away by their father. They were never looked after by him. Around Rs. 60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- would be the annual income from out of the plaint schedule properties. It was misappropriated by the father without paying any amount to them. Since it is no longer beneficial for them to be joint with their father, they demanded partition of the plaint ...
Dantuluri Vekataramaraju Vs. Katta Narayan Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC454; 2007CriLJ892
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., is as to whether on an application filed by the accused under Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Ad, 1881 the Court is obliged to examine the complainant in chief even in respect of matters which have been stated by him on affidavit in spite of mandate of Section 145(1)?2. The facts in nutshell which give rise to the controversy are as under: In the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') in CC No. 391/2003 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner-accused filed petition in DDR No. 10385/2005 to examine the complainant-in-chief who filed an affidavit under Section 145(1) of the Act. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dt. 29-11 -2005 dismissed the said petition. On such dismissal, the petitioner moved this Court under Sectio...
Padma Yadamma and ors. Vs. Gaddam Prabhakar Goud and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD342
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. One Mr. Krishna, the husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of respondents 3 and 4, is an agricultural labourer of Kallakal Village, Medak District. On 1-4-1996 at 7.30 p.m. he was crossing the road, by the side of National Highway No. 7, with a bag of rice on his head. A jeep bearing No. API 6475, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent herein, dashed against him and he died on account of the injuries. The appellants and respondents 3 and 4 herein filed O.P. No. 375 of 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and O.P. No. 376 of 1996, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, towards no fault liability, under Section 140 of the Act.2. Through a common order, dated 30-10-1998, the Tribunal dismissed O.P. No. 376 of 1996 and awarded a su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »