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.
Palamanda Prabhakar and ors. Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD265; 2007(1)ALT40
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri Palamanda Prabhakar and others filed W.P. No. 16344/2006 praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records issued in Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006, dated 29.7.2006 by 1st respondent and to quash the same and to pass such other suitable orders. Respondents 7 to 12 were impleaded as per the order made by this Court dated 25.9.2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 24747/2006. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Likewise, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. A reply affidavit also was filed.2. W.P. No. 17404/2006 is filed by A. Ambika praying for a writ of mandamus calling for records issued in Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B.2/2006 dated 3.8.2006 by the 1st respondent and to set aside the same as without jurisdiction and against to the principles of natural justice and to pass such other suitable orders. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit just on similar lines taking virtua...
Saini Lakshmi and anr. Vs. Bolliepalli Janardhan @ Janardhan Chary and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD250
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition contending that the entertainment of I.A. No. 2602 of 2006 in O.S. No. 932 of 2006 by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District is without jurisdiction.2. The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of the land situated in Sy. No. 523 of Manuguru Village and Mandal of Khammam District, which is declared as an Agency Area.3. On a complaint made by the 3rd respondent herein, eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and after due enquiry the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed an order dated 17.10.2005 directing ejectment of the petitioners herein. It was further ordered that the land in question shall be taken into Government custody and shall be assigned to the eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ...
Md. Shabbir Ahmed and anr. Vs. Zarrar BIn Abdulla and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD32; 2007(1)ALT161
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 407 of 2005 in the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He filed I.A. No. 318 of 2004 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the said LA., on 19-4-2004 and granted temporary injunction, in respect of 693 sq.yards at Ramnaspura, Hyderabad. The order became final, since no appeal was preferred against it.2. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 236 of 2005 under Section 144 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to restore possession of the suit schedule property to him. It was alleged that despite the subsistence of order of temporary injunction, the petitioners herein dispossessed him from the property on 30-6-2005, with the aid and assistance of respondents 2 to 4. In the affidavit filed in support o...
A. Geetha Jyothi Vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P. an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD256
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The writ petitioner suffered a departmental enquiry for various charges. After enquiry, the second respondent-District Judge passed an order on 6.4.2000 accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposing the punishment of withholding one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent-Appellate Authority. While considering the appeal, the first respondent framed an opinion that certain charges, which had been proved against the petitioner, were very grave, therefore, an enhanced punishment was needed to be imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner vide ROC. NO. 211/2000-C11/1, dated 21.2.2002, and the petitioner filed her explanation on 15.3.2002. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the first respondent enhanced the punishment of withholding one ...
Chand Bee and ors. Vs. Hameedunnissa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP150; 2007(1)ALD810
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of common judgment and separate decrees rendered in A.S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1990 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, dated 15-10-2005, through which, the common judgment, rendered by the Court of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. Nos. 100 and 2481 of 1984, and the corresponding decrees dated 19-12-1989; were reversed.2. The defendants in O.S. No. 100 of 1984 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2481 of 1984, and the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 1984 is the defendant in O.S. No. 2481 of 1984. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in O.S. No. 100 of 1984.3. One Smt. Khaja Bee, wife of Mohd. Abdullah, purchased an extent of 665 Sq. yards from one Smt. Danam Rangamma, through a sale deed dated 16-2-1952. Out of this, she is said to have alienated two small pieces, admeasuring 100 Sq. yards and 122 Sq.yards, to differen...
K. Srinivas Rao Vs. K. Renuke Bai
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD691; 2007(2)ALT659
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Secunderabad, against the revision petitioner in O.S. No. 86 of 2001 and obtained an order of interim maintenance of Rs. 750/- p.m. She filed E.P. No. 3/2004 before the Family Court, Secunderabad, to execute the said decree by arrest of the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner contested the EP inter alia on the ground that the Family Court, Secunderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the EP for his arrest as he is a resident of Bellampalli, Adilabad District and as he has no means to pay the amount covered by the decree. Overruling the objection of the revision petitioner the Family Court directed issuance of a warrant of arrest of the revision petitioner, though the respondent did not adduce evidence regarding his means. Hence this revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that though the revision petitioner took a specific plea in his c...
Apseb and ors. Vs. Panda Bhaskara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD96; 2007(4)ALT297
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 44 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, preferred this second appeal.2. The respondent herein was initially employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the first appellant-Board on 29-7-1961. Subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 9-2-1966, but was reverted on 22-6-1967. Thereafter, he was promoted to the same post on 2-9-1969. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration that he is eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Officer and for a mandatory injunction to the appellants for promoting him to the said post.3. The appellants filed a written statement, admitting the particulars of appointment and promotion of the respondent. It was, however, pleaded that with effect from 4-3-1970, the relevant Service Regulations were modified, by incorporating certain conditions for promotion, to the post of Upper Division Clerk viz., that an employee must pass (a) Accounts ...
Shivanath Raj HarnaraIn (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST114(AP)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar J.1. The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows : 'It is prayed that this honourable court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in passing the impugned assessment order dated August 18, 2006 in proceedings ref. RF. No. 3 of 2006-07 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same; and declare that there is no inter-State sale of rice between the petitioner's branch at Kakinada and the head office at New Delhi since the petitioner's head office and its branches are one and the same and constitutes a single legal entity; and also declare that the transactions cannot be declared as inter-State sales since there is no movement of goods from Andhra Pradesh to Delhi which is sine qua non to construe a transaction as inter-State sale; and also declare that the movement of goods from Ka...
Runkana Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Runkana Venkataratnam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD26
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellant is the first defendant in a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent against him and the second respondent.2. The case, in brief, of the first respondent is that she is the widow of Dillirao, who died intestate and issueless in 1972, and that the appellant and the second respondent are brothers of her deceased husband Dillirao. Appellant and the second respondent have four more brothers including Dillirao and three sisters and were possessed of some joint family properties. The Government acquired the land in S. No. 683/5 of Balaga Village belonging to the joint family and the entire compensation of Rs. 4,28,973-40ps therefor was received by the second respondent with consent of all sharer awardees. As she did not receive any notice in the land acquisition proceedings, she was not aware of the said proceedings and the payment of compensation therein to the second respondent and came to know about the said proceedings and the second respon...
Apsrtc, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director Vs. Divakala Vasund ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ407; 2007(1)ALD476; 2007(1)ALT154
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Sri Divakala Venkata Raghava Rao, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, was employed as Senior Assistant in the office of Padmanabham Mandal Parishad, East Godavari District. On 6.9.2000, he was proceeding to the Sub-Treasury Office at Bheemunipatnam, from his house, at 10 A.M. On the way, he was hit by a bus bearing No. AP-9Z-6035, belonging to the appellant, and driven by the 4th respondent. Immediately he was shifted to the nearby hospital, but was declared dead. A case under Section 304A of IPC was registered against the 4th respondent, in the concerned police station. Respondents 1 to 3 (for short 'the respondents') filed MVOP No. 1717 of 2000, in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a sum of Rs. 8,70,000/- as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs. 9,426/- , per month, and that he was aged 54 years, by the time he died.2. The 4th responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »