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.
Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Rep. by E.O. Vs. Garuda Venkata Rao (Died) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD532; 2007(1)ALT86
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with costs by the judgment and decree dated 13-11-1991, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 84 of 1984 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam, filed the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the appeal are that Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Visakhapatnam represented by its Executive Officer filed the suit claiming that the suit schedule vacant site of 1064 square yards belonging to the plaintiff was granted to Garuda Ramayya, son of Venkayya, the father of the 1st defendant under a permanent lease dated 8-4-1908 by the then trustees on a lumpsum payment of Rs. 400/- and for an annual rent of Rs. 50/-for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the temple, giving liberty to the lessee to make any constructions. The trustees had no power to grant a lease in perpetuity irrespective of the adequacy of the rent and such leases are not saved by the relevant statutes. After the death of the then tr...
Mashetty Venkatesham and ors. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD685; 2007(1)ALT253
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.10.2004 as modified by order dated 29.3.2005. By impugned order dated 23.10.2004, the first respondent set aside the order of the second respondent dated 8.12.1999 in Case No. E/5793/98 and directed to delete the names of respondents 3 to 6 from the occupant's column in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 139, 180/A, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247 and 260 of Yeddumailaram Village from record of rights and further directed to record the name of Mashetty Venkatesham. During the pendency of the writ petition, Venkatesham died and, therefore, petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as legal heirs of deceased first petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in Survey Nos. 139, 180, 241 to 243, 246, 247, 257, 259, 260, 289 and 290 situated at Yeddumailaram Village of Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District was purchased by Mashetty Venkatesham. Respondents 3 to 6 are children of brother o...
Ganta Muneppa and ors. Vs. Thoopalle Sreekanthaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD776; 2007(1)ALT257
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 422 of 1982 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Madanapalle filed this second appeal.2. The first respondent filed the suit, initially for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellants and their other brother, the second respondent herein. He pleaded that Appellants 1 and 2 herein sold their share of land in Sy. Nos. l 165/1 and 1166/B admeasuring Ac. 0.51 cents each, through separate sale deeds, dated 22-6-1967 and 18-8-1967. He contended that ever since the date of sale, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the appellants and the second respondent started interfering with his possession.3. The appellants and their brother filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale deeds, but pleaded that they were nominal. It was also contended that the suit schedule property belongs to joint family, comprising of themselves, another brother and their sisters and, at the most, the ...
Larsen and Toubro Limited and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC616(AP)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. The first petitioner is a limited company and the second petitioner is a shareholder thereof. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:For the reasons and in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this honourable court in the interests of justice be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 declaring that Section 4(7), Explanation VI to Section 2(28) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Rules 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(c) read with Rule 17(1)(e) made thereunder are repugnant to Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India and the scheme of levy and recovery of taxes both at the hands of the nominated sub-contractors, who are registered dealers, remitting taxes as well as the main contractor like the petitioners, is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Serial No. 54 of List II...
Apsrtc and anr. Vs. Telugu Narasayamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC349; 2007(1)ALD333; 2007(1)ALT59
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11-2-2000 in O.P. No. 627 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Vizianagaram, wherein the claim of the first respondent herein was allowed awarding Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum and costs.2. The first respondent herein filed the claim application OP No. 627 of 1997 before the Tribunal against the appellants and the second respondent - driver, for a total compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. According to the first respondent, on 5-8-1996 at about 9.30 a.m., while she was boarding the APS RTC Bus bearing No. AP-9/Z-2551 at Denkada bus stop, along with other passengers including her father and brother, the driver of the bus, in a rash and negligent manner, started the bus even before the claimant and others could get in and in the process, the claimant fell down from footboard and the rear wheel of the bus ran over two legs of the claimant, resulting in multiple fractur...
Bongu Sarojanamma Vs. Nalla Venkatarama Siva Prasadarao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD444; 2007(2)ALT210
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. On a reference made by the second respondent (Land Acquisition Officer) under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the reference Court granted time to the revision petitioner and first respondent to file their statements. Since the revision petitioner failed to file statements within the time granted, she was set ex parte and the case was posted for further hearing. Thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 187 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order against her, which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner was undergoing treatment in a hospital at a different place, as disclosed from Ex. A1, it is clear that the revision petitioner has established sufficient cause for her non-appearance earlier and so the order under revision is unsustainable. The contention ...
Vadlamani Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. Saripalli Balakameswari by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD94; 2007(2)ALT636
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 55 of 1990, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against the respondents, for the relief of recovery of possession, to an extent of 6 inches x 14 feet of land, and for mandatory injunction for removal of the slabs in 1st and 2nd floors with the same measurement; overlapping into the property of the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 28-4-1995. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 65 of 2002. Since there was some resistance by the respondents, he filed E.A. No. 278 of 2002, for removal of obstruction. At that stage, the respondents filed E.A. No. 501 of 2003, with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner, to note the physical features, on the site. It was opposed by the petitioner, and the Executing Court allowed the E.A., through order dated 12-9-2003. Hence, this C.R.P.2. Sri K.S.R. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the provisions of Order XXVI C.P.C., do n...
Velaiswamy Nagammal and ors. Vs. V.A. Sethu Manickan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD57
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants who are the mother, widow and children of V. Mani (the deceased), filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondents alleging that the deceased died due to an accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent.2. 1st respondent chose to remain ex-parte. 2nd respondent filed counter contesting the claim.3. In support of the case of the appellants, 2nd appellant only was examined as P.W. 1 and Ex. A 1 to A7 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of 2nd respondent. On the basis of the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to 50% negligence of the deceased and 50% negligence of the driver of the lorry of the 1st respondent, and so appellants are entitled only to Rs. 55,827/-, being 50% of the compensation of Rs. 1,11,654/- payable to them due t...
S. Rashmi and ors. (B. Tech. I Year Students) Vs. State of Andhra Prad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALT1
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whetherthe appellants, who secured Pre-University qualification from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeet, a Deemed University (hereinafter described as 'the University'), were eligible to be admitted in 1st years B.Tech course in Hasvita Institute of Engineering & Technology, Keesara Village, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the Institute') and the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education (for short, 'the State Council') committed an illegality by disapproving their admission, is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by them under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.The Facts:2. After passing 10th Class examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Board of Secondary Education (forshort,'the Board'), the appellants are said to have studied Pre-University course under Distance Education Programme conducted by the University. They are said to have been awarded certificates by the University in October 2005. Thereafter, on the basis ...
Bodala Murali Krishna Vs. Smt. Bodala Prathima
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD72; 2007(1)ALT237
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1977 and were blessed with a child. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No. 136 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, against the petitioner, for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial of the O.P. commenced.2. The petitioner is a resident of U.S.A. He filed I.A.No. 340 of 2006 seeking permission of the trial Court for recording his evidence through the video conferencing. The respondent opposed the application. Through its order, dated 15-6-2006, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.3. Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is nothing in the Evidence Act or C.P.C., which prohibits the recording of evidence through the video conferencing and in fact, the recent amendments to the Evidence Act, are in the direction of permitting such a procedure. He places reliance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »