Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
G. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Uco Bank, H.O. Personnel Dept., Rep. by the Cha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD142; 2007(1)ALT578; (2007)2LLJ481AP
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit him to rejoin service as a Scale III officer, to direct them to pay him full salary with effect from 1-4-1993 and to grant him all ancillary and attendant benefits or in the alternative to direct the respondents to pay him compensation of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, W.P. No. 21796 of 1995 is filed by the petitioner herein.2. When W.P. No. 21796 of 1995 was pending on the file of this Court, the first respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 19(1) and (2) of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, issued proceedings dated 24-11 -1995 retiring the petitioner from service with immediate effect and directed that he be paid an amount equivalent to three months substantive salary/pay and allowances last drawn by him. Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings dated 24-11 -1995 and consequently permit him to rejoin service as a Scale III officer, to pay him full salary wit...
Boddu Satyavathi Vs. Boddu Ramakrishna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD591; 2007(3)ALT417
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1996 passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur.2. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience.3. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal in brief, are as follows:The plaintiff herein Smt. Boddu Satyavathi filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 25-6-1983 and for direction to the respondent-defendant to execute sale deed within the time stipulated by the Court or in the alternative to direct the respondent-defendant to refund Rs. 60,000/- at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization by creating a charge on the plaint schedule property and also for a direction to give Rs. 3,600/-being the value of the stamps purchased by the plaintiff but carried away by the defendant, with interest at 6%...
M.A. Jaleel Vs. Prakash Road Lines Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD60
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Mr. MA. Jaleel, the petitioner/claimant in O.P. No. 339/97 on the file of Additional Special Judge for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal being aggrieved of granting of only Rs. 3,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation though the appellant/ petitioner/claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which had occurred on 22-7-1996.2. Sri Shakeel Ahmed Ansari, the Counsel representing the appellant/ claimant made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of P.W. 3 and Ex.A.6 medical bills are available which would go to show that the appellant/petitioner had spent Rs. 44,360/-. The learned Counsel also would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 if taken into conside...
Bhudevi Vs. Bhagirathi Bai and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT424
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since these two second appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Appellant in Second Appeal No. 206 of 1996 is the plaintiff and appellants in Second Appeal No. 390 of 1996 are the defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.3. Plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property which is 0.22 gts of wet land in Sy. No. 129 of Arsepalli village within the boundaries mentioned therein which hereinafter would be called as 'the suit land', alleging that her father gifted the suit land to her long back and that her brother, Bhoomaiah, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, who died about two years prior to filing of the suit, was managing the same on her behalf and was giving half share of the produce to her for being in permissive possession of the...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Vidarbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC482; 2007CriLJ596
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. When these Criminal Appeals were taken up for admission, this Court was pleased to issue notices to the respondents 1 to 3 and the office acknowledgment establishes that the notices were served on them. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not put in their appearance. Subsequently, having heard Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, this Court came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant and directed the learned Counsel for the appellant to cause fresh service of notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the learned Counsel took out notices, which were served on the respondents on 2-8-2006, but they have not chosen to put in their appearance either in person or through their counsel. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4th respondent.2. Respondents 2 ...
Narra Subhas Chandra Bose Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD774; 2007(2)ALT381
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac. 0.48 cts, in Sy.No. 381/2-B of Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. The respondent issued a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('the principal Act') on 11.6.2006 proposing acquisition of this land for the purpose of providing house sites to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Weaker Sections. This notification is assailed in this writ petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged two grounds in support of this challenge : (a) that inasmuch as the notification has been issued by the District Collector, Krishna, the notification is invalid as the Collector is not competent to issue a draft notification under Section 4(1); and (b) the notification is invalid as it was published in 'The District Gazette' and not in 'The Official Gazette'.3. Contention No. 1 is eschewed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as it is conceded fai...
Mothey Sarojini Vs. Karigiri Co.Op Housing Society Limited, Rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD36; 2007(1)ALT147
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) filed the suit being O.S. No. 325 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit against the petitioner herein (hereafter called, the defendant) is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1982 under which the defendant agreed to sell land admeasuring 2,061 square yards to the plaintiff. After receiving the suit summons, the defendant appeared before the Court through her son as 'she is an old lady unable to appear before the Court'. The matter was adjourned for written statement from time to time till November, 2001. As the case was not prosecuted properly by the defendant or her son, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 16.11.2001. Plaintiff's counsel issued a notice in newspapers on 31.05.2003 for the information of the general public about the decree passed by the civil Court. On 30.06.2003, the defend...
Muttha Workers Co-ordination Committee, Rep. by Its Convenor and ors. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALT558
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This common order deals with above three writ petitions. First two writ petitions were listed on 27-9-2006 for Admission. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court reserved the matters for consideration of orders. Subsequently, claiming similar relief, W. P. No. 22386 of 2006 was filed, which was listed before this Court on 30-10-2006. After hearing the submission of the learned senior counsel, the writ petition was reserved for orders as earlier two writ petitions were already under consideration.2. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, issued notification, dated 2-9-2006, in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Police Act, 1861 prohibiting heavy goods vehicles (trucks, for brevity) above five (5) tonnage from entering into Vijayawada City for loading and unloading of goods from midnight of 3-9-2006 onwards except as provided in the said notification. While prescribing cut off p...
Mohd. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Smt. Munni @ Zainab Bee
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD393; 2007(1)ALT511
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property alleging that plaint schedule property is her property and that the first revision petitioner, who is her husband, and other revision petitioners, who are the first wife and children of the first revision petitioner, have forcibly necked her out of the plaint schedule property.2. The first revision petitioner filed his written statement, inter alia, contending that after he developed intimacy with the respondent priorto the marriage, he purchased a vacant site in the name of the respondent and constructed a house therein later and so the plaint schedule property, in fact, belongs to him and that the sale deed in favour of the respondent is only a benami transaction and that the respondent out of her own volition went away from the house and so she is not entitled to any relief.3. On the basis of the pleading...
KhamruddIn Khan, Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Council, Mahabubnagar Mun ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD683; 2007(1)ALT324
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of finally at the request of the learned Counsel representing the respective parties.2. WVMP No. 1833 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 5970 of 2004 is filed by to vacate the interim order made in WPMP No. 7782 of 2004 in WP No. 5970 of 2004, dated 9.4.2004.3. Writ Petition No. 5970 of 2004 is filed by the writ petitioner against the respondents, viz., The Mahaboobnagar Municipal Council represented by its Chairman and the Municipal Commissioner, Mahaboobnagar Municipality praying for a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the respondents from giving effect to the proceedings in file No. 1/1709/2002, dated 31.10.2002 issued by the respondent after declaring the same as illegal and contrary to law and direct the respondents not to interfere with the site in front of his house bearing No. 1-3-111/3 situated at Saddalgundu, Mahaboobnagar town and pass such other suitable orders.4. Writ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »