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.
Suluguru Vijaya and ors. Vs. Pulumati Manjula
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD657; 2007(2)ALT218
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 30-8-2006 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. Sri M. Rama Krishna, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent-decree holder.2. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners-judgment debtors, would maintain that when the relief of delivery of possession was not specifically prayed for, it is not open to the executing Court to order delivery and the same is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also would contend that unless the plaint and the relief portion are amended in this regard, a decree also cannot be passed relating to delivery of possession and when that being so, ordering delivery of possession in such a case cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the revision petitioners-judgment debtors had taken an objection by filing E.A.No.221 of 2005 in E.P.No.128 of 2004 under Section 47 r...
Smt. Suluguru Vijaya and ors. Vs. Pulumati Manjula
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP35
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 30-8-2006 and granted (interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time Sri M. Rama Krishna, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent-decree holder.2. Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners-judgment debtors, would maintain that when the relief of delivery of possession was not specifically prayed for, it is not open to the executing Court to order delivery and the same is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also would contend that unless the plaint and the relief portion are amended in this regard, a decree also cannot be passed relating to delivery of possession and when that being so ordering delivery of possession in such a case cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the revision petitioners-judgment debtors had taken an objection by filing E.A. No. 221 of 2005 in E.P. No. 128 of 2004 under Section ...
N. Janakamma Vs. B. Venkata Lakshamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD169; 2007(2)ALT630
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 41 of 1981 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, against her step-mother, the respondent herein, and five others, for partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit, on 05-03-1984. Thereupon, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 2072 of 1986 before this Court. The appeal was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed on 12-11-2001, directing, inter alia, that the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent on the other, shall be entitled to half share, each, in the suit schedule properties.2. The petitioner filed four applications, namely, I.A. No. 27 of 2002 for passing final decree; I.A. No. 28 of 2002 for appointment of a Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties; I.A. No. 141 of 2004, under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C., for appointment of a Commissioner, to determine the mesne profits, with reference to items 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 of the suit schedule properties for various periods, and I.A. No. 138 of 2005, u...
Md. TajuddIn Vs. Md. Abdul Rahaman and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD145; 2008(3)ALT454
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-8-2006 in LA. No. 247 of 2006 in O.S. No. 180 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.2. The 3rd defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an acknowledgement deed dated 9-6-1977, executed by defendants 1 to 3 and father of the 4th defendant by name Abdul Gafoor and also their mother Banu Bee in respect of the suit property. The 3rd defendant filed his written statement denying the execution of the document dated 9-6-1977. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and the suit document dated 9-6-1977 was marked as Ex. A1. It is not in dispute that during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1, a suggestion was given to P.W. 1 by the Counsel for the 3rd defendant that Ex. A1 was not executed by defendants 1 to 3 and father of the 4th defend...
Munagapati Veeranjaneyulu and ors. Vs. Bathula Laxma Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD352
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants, who are parents and brother of M. Nagaraju (the deceased), who died in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers belonging to respondents 1 and 3, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the respondents, who are owners of the vehicles involved in the accident and their insurers, alleging that the deceased who was aged about 20 years was earning Rs. 5,000/-per month at the time of his death in the accident.2. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition. In support of the case of the appellants, they examined the 1st appellant as P.W. 1 and another witness as P.W. 2 and marked Exs. A.1to A.9. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent.3. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the ras...
Y.V.S. Reddy, S/O Venkat Reddy Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD172
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The matter is appearing under interlocutory. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 20-07-2006, and interim stay was granted for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time and ultimately, extended until further orders on 11- 08-2006.2. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. In view of the same, both the counsel made a request for disposal of the writ petition itself finally.3. Sri Y.V.S. Reddy, the writ petitioner, filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in Memo No. 5730/Pt 2/Pts.III/A3/2006-4, dated 01-07-2006 rejecting the appeal/petition of the petitioner and confirming the orders of the District Level Committee in Roc.No.3935/2002-Pts.7, dated 07-11- 2005, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant second year lease period for quarrying sand in Kanneveedu Reach of Krishna District.4. Smt N. Shoba, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, had...
ippagunta Koteswari Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD351
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The question arises for consideration in this petition is: Whether non-payment of house tax due to a Gram Panchayat is an offence punishable under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder and whether the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence on the complaint so filed by the Executive Officer/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be?2. When the criminal petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned Judge appears to have been felt that the matter should be decided by a Division Bench and accordingly directed the Registry after obtaining necessary orders from the Honourable Chief Justice matter be listed before a Division Bench. Therefore, the petition thus, listed before us.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are thus: The Sarpanch of Pottepalem Gram Panchayat filed a complaint under Sections...
Guddi Malkapur Co-op. Housing Society Vs. LA.O, Huda and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD339; 2007(1)ALT547
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing by a learned Single Judge of this Court, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar : AIR2005SC2204 , to justify the rejection of request of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Judge felt that according to Section 11(2) of the Act prima facie, the agreement must be an agreement reached during the course of the proceedings under the Act and he is of the opinion that the language of Section 11(2) does not permit a construction which takes an agreement anterior to the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings within the sweep of the said sub-section. The above judgment does not deal with the specific question of the construction of Section 11(2) of the Act, and the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of appropriate strength, ...
Ganapathi (Padala) Suryakumari Vs. Dr. Erra Ramadevi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP118; 2007(2)ALD21
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. This Civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 26-9-2006, passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. East Godavari District in allowing the application I.A. No. 1449 of 2004 in O.S. No. 689 of 2000 from the date of order itself.3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 is defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is proposed defendant No. 2 in the suit before the Court below.4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The suit is filed for mandatory injunction for removing the basement verified in ABFE red marked portion of the plaint plan and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing the wall. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, for some reason, probably from the information furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the application, felt tha...
Soma Tirumala Reddy Vs. K. Sambasiva Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD131
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant was employed as a driver with the 1st respondent to work upon a lorry bearing No. AP-7T-5335. On 28-1-1998, he was on the way from Guntur to Khatmandu, in Nepal. While it was passing through the State of Madhya Pradesh, the lorry met with an accident and the appellant received multiple injuries and fracture to four bones, of different parts of the body. He was treated as inpatient up to 31-1-1998, two operations were conducted upon him and steel rods have been inserted, to ensure proper joining of bones.2. The appellant filed W.C. No. 61 of 1999 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur, (for short 'the Commissioner'), claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The insurer of the vehicle was impleaded as the 2nd respondent. The appellant pleaded that he suffered total disablement and he is entitled for compensation claimed by him. The claim was opposed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »