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.
Puvvada Sanyasi Lingam and ors. Vs. Puvvada Peda Satyanarayana Murthy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD134
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-3-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram, in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1999, wherein and whereby the order dated 28-7-1999 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in R.C.C. No. 2 of 1995 is set aside.2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the civil revision petition are as follows:The petitioners herein and the first respondent are brothers. The petitioners herein claim right, title and interest over the petition schedule property in R.C.C. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. R.C.C. No.2 of 1995 was filed by the second respondent herein under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the Act') seeking to permit him to deposit the rents of the petition schedule property at the ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Anjaneyulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD715; 2007(4)ALT643; [2007(114)FLR663]
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal is presented, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'), by the insurer of a vehicle bearing No. AP 10T 3519, owned by the second respondent herein.2. The first respondent filed W.C. No. 64 of 1999 before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner'), stating that he was employed by the second respondent, to work as a Driver on the vehicle, referred to above, at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. He stated that the said vehicle was engaged by a tourist agency and that on 17-5-1999, at about 2.30 p.m., while he was proceeding from Srisailam to Tirupathi, a bus bearing No. TN 01N 90062, came in a rash and negligent manner on the ghat road and hit the vehicle being driven by him. He is said to have received grievous injuries in the accident and was shifted to N.S.R.S.P. Project Hospital at Srisailam. Further treatment is alleged to...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Alagara Siva Rama Krishnaia ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD670
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking compensation of Rs. 80,000/- from respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant alleging that when he was travelling in the lorry belonging to the second respondent being driven by the third respondent, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, resulting in injuries to him and others.2. Second respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by the third respondent, contending that he was transporting sand from Krishna River to Kolanukonda and that the first respondent clandestinely boarded the lorry at a speed breaker and that though he was driving cautiously as the road was narrow and the soil was loose the lorry skidded and over turned, but some of the coolies, who were sleeping on the sand, did not receive injuries, but the first respondent, who managed to get into the lorry without his knowledge, seems to have suffered injurie...
immanni Ramakrishna and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALT225
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Lr.R.O.C.No.2261/2005-G.1 dated 31-3-2005 of respondent No. 1 and the consequential proceedings in Lr.R.O.C.No.4501/04/R dated 15-4-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 and consequently set aside the same and direct R.3 to grant final approval layout for the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.6.84 cents in T.S. No. 463/1, 463/2, 1100/1B, 1100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 1100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5, 1098/4 of Hukumpet village, Hukumpet Gram Panchayat, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other suitable orders.2. Counter affidavits are filed by R.1 and R.4, but wrongly shown as R.3 and the reply affidavit also had been filed.3. The principal question which had been argued in elaboration by Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, the...
M. Anjaiah, S/O Mallaiah Vs. the Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Princ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD211; 2007(2)ALT697
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The State and the respondents' denial, to allot alternative land to the petitioner and seeking a direction that the respondents 1 and 2 allot him alternative land, and a declaration that the 5th respondent's memo No. C/1669/96 dated.25-01-2003 is illegal and arbitrary, is the grievance and reliefs sought in this writ petition.2. The petitioner's grievance, culminating in this writ petition and in the several proceedings leading to it has had a meandering course. The facts:The petitioner was the owner of a property bearing D. No. 13/6/790 including a residential house in 400 square yards and a sawmill in 514 square yards at Sangam, Langar House, Gudimalkapur, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 14-11-1996 proposed acquisition of 6766 square meters, including 914 square yards (equivalent 764.10 square meters) of the petitioner's land aforementioned. The declaration under ...
K. Chakrapani Vs. the District Level Committee, Represented by Its Cha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD571
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The counsel on record made a request to dispose of the Writ Petition itself finally though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory. Hence, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally.2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the D.Ds., for Rs. 20,32,851/- (EMD + 25% knocked bid amount) deposited by the petitioner for participating in the sand quarry auctions pursuant to Notification No. 3933/2005/A12, dated 28.9.2005 for reach No. 42, Gopalapuram as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violation of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass such other suitable orders.3. Smt. N. Shobha, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the stand taken by the respondents for refund of the amounts deposited through the D.Ds., cannot stand fo...
Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society, Rep. by Its Preside ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD70; 2007(1)ALT438
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10-10-2006 passed in I.A. No. 661 of 2006 in O.P. No. 60 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad wherein the application filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein to take up the issue 'whether the Election Petition filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation' was dismissed.2. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues for trial on 21-8-2006.(i) Whether the declaration by R-3 (Election Officer) on 29-1.0-2005 that the Managing Committee headed by Sri P. Narendra Chowdary as unanimously elected, is valid and binding on all the members of the society?(ii) Whether the preparation of voter's list by A-4 is proper and correct?(iii) Whether the election process followed by R-3 is in accordance with relevant Rules of APCS Act & Rules of 1964, relating to the elections of the societies?(iv) Whether the enhanced share capital was brought to the notice of...
Kishan Prasad Palaypu Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas536(AP); [2008]83SCL376(AP)
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The question referred to this Bench is a simple one, 'whether failure to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') can be said to be a continuing offence or not'.2. The facts giving rise to reference may be stated in a nutshell as follows:The petitioner is a director of M/s. Palaypu Financial and Investment Services Ltd., (Al). He and another director were prosecuted along with the company for the offence under Section 220 of the Act for their failure to file the return, namely, the audited balance-sheet and profit and loss account required to be laid before the annual general meeting, i.e., September 30, 1999, as required under Section 210 of the Act within six months before the close of the financial year and three copies of the balance-sheet, etc., so laid shall be filed with the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') on or before October 30, 1999, and in case the balance-sheet, ...
Dr. V. Rajeshwar Rao, S/O Sri V. Seethaiah Vs. M. Yadagiri Reddy, S/O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD17; 2007(1)ALT306
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The writ petitioner seeks to assail the order, dated 05-08-2005, passed by the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for brevity, 'the Act') in T.O.P.No.5 of 2004. The writ petitioner is the first respondent in T.O.P.No.5 of 2004. The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners therein. The writ petitioner filed the suit initially in O.S.No.48 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, East and North, Ranga Reddy, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. That suit, for want of necessary pecuniary jurisdiction, was directed to be returned. The petitioner seems to have represented the suit in O.S.No.218 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, where it was pending adjudication. Earlier, the fourth respondent herein filed L.G.C.No.2 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court, wherein the writ petitioner though initially was not arrayed as respondent, had subsequently been impleaded as a p...
Amrutha Estates Vs. Emerald Apartment Owners Association and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD112; 2007(4)ALT294
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 1698 of 1995, on the file of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31.08.2006, in A.S. No. 443 of 2000, rendered by the Court of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The first respondent, who is an association of owners of one of the blocks, constructed by the appellant-Company, filed the suit. It is stated that the appellant constructed Emerald Delux Apartments at Amrutha Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, with an independent area, earmarked for children's play in front of the entrance of the complex, on the northern side, separating two other complexes. It was alleged that the appellant was attempting to bring about construction on the area, referred to above, and sought for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the appellant or anyone claiming through it, from interfering with its possession, over the said area. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »