Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
V. Sriramulu Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD114; 2006(2)ALT405; IV(2006)BC222; (2006)6CompLJ558(AP); [2006]68SCL345(AP)
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is father-in-law of one Smt. V, Srivani, (wife of V. Giridhar, third respondent herein) who is proprietor of second respondent concern. Second respondent availed loan of Special Over Draft Facility (SOD) for Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs only) against hypothecation of raw materials and finished products. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein created mortgage of the house to secure the loan as guarantors. There was a default on the part of the second respondent in repayment of the loan. Therefore, the first respondent bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act, for brevity) on 16.5.2005 proposing to enforce the security. The second respondent was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 17,40,437/- (Rupees seventeen lakh forty thousand four hundred and thirty seven only) within sixty days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The...
Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation, Rep. by Its Managing Directo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD577; 2006(2)ALT139
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since all the abovementioned Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition are inter-connected and arise out of a common order, dated 8-6-2001, in O.P.Nos. 11, 12 and 15 of 2000, passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellant in C.M.A. Nos. 2288, 2609 and 2622 of 2001 and the respondent in C.R.P.No.4073 of 2001 and C.M.A.No.2875 of 2001 is the Contractor while the appellant in C.M.A.No. 2875 of 2001 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4073 of 2001 and the respondent No. 1 and the respondent in C.M.A.Nos. 2288, 2609 and 2622 of 2001 respectively, is the Department and the respondent No.2 in C.M.A.No.2875 of 2001 is the learned Arbitrator.4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and S.G. Sambandan & Company, represented by its P...
S. Santhanam and ors. Vs. State of A.P., Revenue Dept. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD566; 2006(2)ALT341
Bilal Nazki, J.1. All these writ petitions and writ appeals have been heard together, as they raise common questions of law and fact. However, this judgment will be confined only to those cases, which were subject matter of earlier litigation in this Court and also the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 13010 to 13019 of 1996 and 2692-93 of 1997 before the Supreme Court and decided by the Supreme Court by the judgment titled, Collector and Ors. v. P. Mangamma and Ors. : [2003]2SCR430 .2. There are some disputes raised in some writ petitions between the original assignees and the purchasers. There are some disputes, which are inter se original assignees as well. Those writ petitions will be decided separately and this Court would confine itself to the questions, which were already decided in earlier writ appeals and writ petitions and which were subject matter of appeals before the Supreme Court.3. Now, with this preface, the necessary facts of the case :--Orders were passed by the Dis...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abbas Bee (Died) by Lrs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC757; 2007ACJ372; 2006(2)ALD746; 2006(2)ALT550
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an order dated 3-8-2005 made in I.A.No.339 of 2005 in O.P. No. 768 of 1999 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Mahaboobnagar.2. Petitioner - National Insurance Company Limited is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition (O.P.) filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. Respondent No. 3 herein is the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The said LA. was filed seeking to amend the provision of law in the Claim Petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). After hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the above LA. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the Insurance Company.3. Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the Court below has grossly erred in holding that there is...
B. Srikanth Vs. Erukala Laxmi Suvarnamukhi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD62
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 24-11-2005. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani entered appearance. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that on 24-11-2005 while ordering Notice Board Admission, further ordered interim stay of all further proceedings on condition of the petitioner/ appellant depositing half of the decretal amount and costs within a period of six weeks failing which the stay granted shall stand vacated and on such deposit the respondent/plaintiff had been given liberty to withdrawn the same without furnishing any security. But however, the said conditional order was not complied with.2. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel representing the appellant Sri C. V. Narayana Rao would maintain that the two substantial questions of Law which arise for consideration in this second appeal are as hereunder:1. Whether the suit can be maintained in the absence of a licence under A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 Fasli ?2. Whether the suit ...
Zahoor Bee and ors. Vs. Unkonda Venkataiah (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD158; 2006(3)ALT431
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. If one is looking for an instance in the field of law, for application of the adage 'a stitch in time, saves nine', the present case provides for one. In fact, the concerned Court omitted to put the stitches on more than one occasion, and the loss was substantial. The saga is spread over, one year short of quarter of a century.2. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 84 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, against the appellants, for the relief of declaration of title in respect of 35 guntas of land in Survey No. 689 of Peddapally Village and for recovery of damages of Rs. 46,000/-. A new Sub-Court, now known as the Court of Senior Civil Judge, was established at Peddapally. Therefore, the suit was transferred to that Court and re-numbered as O.S. No. 39 of 1987. Shortly thereafter, it was dismissed for default on 7-7-1987.3. The respondent filed I.A. No. 365 of 1987 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., for setting aside the order, dated 7-7-1987. The ...
K. Swarna Kumari, Subordinate Judge (Compulsorily Retired) Vs. Govt. o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD585; 2006(2)ALT289; [2006(110)FLR282]; (2006)IIILLJ570AP
T. Meena Kumari, J. (for A. Gopal Reddy, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. and herself)1. A Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice Hon'ble Sri Devinder Gupta by its order dated 15-12-2004 felt proviso (b) to Rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Rules') appears to have not been taken note of by the Full Bench in V. Venkata Bharani v. High Court of A.P. 2001 (6) ALT 225 which in its turn had approved the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in V. Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P. : 2001(3)ALD625 and thus referred the matter to the Full Bench to consider the question as to the legality and validity of disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner under A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Rules') after 1991 Rules were adopted by the High Court. On placing the matter before the Full Bench, it held that the department...
Sivishi Associates and ors. Vs. Jagadeeshwari Agencies
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP186; 2006(3)ALD135; 2006(2)ALT704
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by a Judgment dated 28-1-2004 made in O.S.No.30 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff, who laid the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum. Defendant No. 3 filed a detailed written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants, denying the various averments made in the plaint. At paragraph-17 of the written statement, it was asserted that the plaint itself was not properly presented and the same is not vaild. It appears that the plaint has been presented on 16-1 -1998 with a Court fee of Rs. 500/- On 2-3-1998, a Court fee of Rs. 1700/- was paid. Similarly, on 30-6-1998, a Court fee of Rs. 1,000/-, on 26-8-1998 a Court fee of Rs. 1,005/- and finally on 8-4-1999 a Court fee of Rs. 21/- was pa...
Azmath Baig Vs. T. Naresh Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD64; 2006(3)ALT266
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.CRP No. 5469/ 2005:1. The present C.R.P. is filed against the order made in LA. No. 2377/2005 in O.S. No. 1192/2000 on the file of H Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal which was filed under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte orders against the petitioners therein and to receive the written statement.2. Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that after a long lapse of time when the matter was reopened for the purpose of just producing certain citations, defendants 5 and 6 in the main suit who were set ex parte on 2-8-2002, after a lapse of more than 3 years, had moved an application to set aside the ex parte order and the same was allowed by the learned Judge by imposing some costs. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions and would maintain that the impugned order cannot be sustained.3. Per contra, Sri P. Pankaj Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the contesting responden...
B.S.S.R.K. Sai Babu Vs. A.P. State Police Housing Corpn. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD113
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Draftsman-Hi by the first respondent, in the year 1982. He was regularized in that post with effect from 25-2-1984. Thereafter, he was promoted as Draftsman-I in the year 1989. He was further promoted as Junior Engineer (It is now, renamed as Assistant Engineer) in the year 1991.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he became eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1986 itself, the first respondent has appointed the second respondent herein, on transfer, from a Co-operative Sugar Factory. He states that in the year 1999, a seniority list for the post of Assistant Engineer was published, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 46 and the second respondent at Sl. No. 14. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations ever since then, for restoration of his seniority and to place him above the second respondent.3. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »