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.
A. Govardhan Reddy Vs. Ravi Medical Distributors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD276; 2006(3)ALT64
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This C.R.P., which is at the stage of SR, is sought to be filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 15-03-2005 passed by the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court Hyderabad, allowing the application, in I.A. No. 191 of 2004 in O.S. No. 639 of 2002, filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. As by reason of the order passed in the I A, the Court below allowed the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit and passed a decree, upon contest by the defendant by way of filing written statement, the Registry took an objection that the C.R.P. under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') is not maintainable, for an appeal remedy is provided against the said order.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the decree passed in the I A, amounted to deciding the very suit itself, revision under Section 115 of the Code, is ma...
Rayadurgam Pedda Reddeppa (Died) and ors. Vs. Rayadurgam Narasimha Red ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD764
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 421 of 1996, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, assails the order, dated 26-10-2004, passed by the trial Court, refusing to receive a document in evidence.2. The deceased first respondent and deceased petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. Respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was urged that the suit schedule property was initially purchased, by the mother of the first respondent and petitioners 1 and 2, by name Smt. Achamma, and she in turn, sold it to the first respondent, through a sale deed. It was urged that in spite of such an exclusive sale, the petitioners herein are in possession of the property.3. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that during the lifetime of Achamma, the first respondent obtained a sale deed from her clandestinely, and ultimately, when it was challenged by the respondents and other village elders, he executed a document ...
V. Veera Raju Vs. Executive Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, Ap ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD792
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner claims to have been working Man Mazdoor with the respondents-APSRTC since 1.5.1986 in their Civil Engineering Department, and posted at their various offices. While so, the respondents called the casual/contract workers for interview for regularization, and he being one among them, attended the interview held on 4.12.1992. However, he was not selected. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Man Mazdoor with the respondents-APSRTC since 1.5.1986, and he having put in more than 240 days of service in a year, as per Circular No.PD 163/89, dated 20.12.1989, issued by the respondents, is entitled to be regularized into service, but the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services is ...
B. Venkat Rao Vs. B.V. Rayudu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD405
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24-11-2004 made in A.S. No. 79 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, wherein the Judgment and Decree dated 28-4-2004 made in O.S. No. 472 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the suit, was partly allowed.2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit, which was laid seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and to handover the same to the plaintiff and to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 27,900/- and also for future mesne profits at Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of vacating and handing over the possession of the suit premises.3. Here, it may be necessary to note that the defendant-tenant also file...
indo Aquatics Limited Vs. Supdt. of Cus. and C. Ex., Range-i
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2009[16]STR112
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This is a petition for quashing order dated August 16, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur was dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of the amount in terms of order dated January 28, 2005 passed by the Tribunal.2. Petitioner claims to be 100% Export Oriented Unit operating at Kothakoduru Village in Nellore District and is engaged in farming and hatching in prawns and prawn seeds. It is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Vide show cause notice dated 12-5-1999, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kannavari Thota, District Guntur call upon the petitioner to show cause against proposed levy of central excise duty at the rate of 16% Adv. on the value of 5 DG sets and penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rul...
Bajanthri Lakshmamma and ors. Vs. Smt. B. Janakamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD204; 2006(2)ALT571
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed a suit for injuction restraining the revision-petitioners from interfering with her possession of the property specified in the schedule (suit property), which was decreed in the trial Court after contest. Appeal preferred by the revision-petitioners was allowed and the second appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed confirming the decree in the first appeal.2. Alleging that the respondent who emboldened by the exparfeorder of injunction obtained by him in the suit, entered into the suit property thereof and has been enjoying it during the pendency of the suit, has to vacate the same after dismissal of the suit, revision-petitioners filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC seeking re-delivery of the possession of the suit property to them, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the appeal preferred by the revision -petitioners against the d...
Mohd. Taher Mirza and anr. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Authorised Office ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT71
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment, dated 16-9-2005, in L.R.A. No. 8 of 2002 passed by the Court of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, under Section 21 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). The facts leading to filing of this revision petition, in brief, are noticed hereunder. The father of the two petitioners, Mohammed Mirza filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act showing the agricultural land in his holding before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. By proceedings, dated 22-12-1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in C.C.No.CH/2961/ 75 (declaration filed by father of the petitioners) determining an extent of 4.7947 standard holdings as excess land owned by the declarant on the notified date, i.e., 1-1-1975. The declarant also surrendered excess land...
Spring Fields Financial Services Ltd. Vs. the State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)712; I(2007)BC218; [2007]139CompCas410(AP); 2006CriLJ2090
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Cri. Appeal No. 415 of 1997 the present appeal is preferred.2. The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 124 of 1996 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is the accused.3. The trial Court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act').4. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the III Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad the learned Judge acquitted the accused by reason of the impugned judgment.5. The facts leading to the case are that the appellant is a financial company and provided finances to the accused to an extent of Rs. 31,50,000/- and the accused-company has issued three post-dated cheques for a total amount of Rs. 34,65,000/- which includes interest on Rs. 31,50,000/-.6. The contents of the complaint also disclose that the accused-company h...
N. Venkataiah Vs. Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD774
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.WP No. 13898 of 2004 :-Arguments heard. The writ petition is disposed of. For reasons, see separate detailed order passed in Writ Petition No. 4193 of 1993.WP No. 4193 of 1993 :-Arguments heard. The writ petition is disposed of. For reasons, see separate detailed order.1. These two writ petitions filed by Sri N. Venkataiah are reflective of the manoeuvring by an employee, who has been able to misuse the process of the Court to his advantage, by first claiming that he is an employee of Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (for short 'the Society') and then taking the stand that he is an employee of the State Government and the Society does not have the jurisdiction to punish him.2. In Writ Petition No. 4193 of 1993, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to absorb him in the service of the Society. Initially, he did not implead the State Government or its functionaries as a party to the writ petition. But af...
D. Pandu Vs. General Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD817; 2006(2)ALT614
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The question involved in both the writ petitions is as to whether acquittal in a criminal case, would preclude disciplinary action being initiated against an employee for the very same charges. Since common questions of law have been raised in both these writ petitions, they were heard together and are now disposed of by a common order. It would be suffice if the facts in W.P. No. 3892 of 2000 are taken note of.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a chowkidar with the Central Warehousing Corporation. On the intervening night of 1st/2nd December, 1986 six bags of rice were stolen from the Central Warehousing Corporation Godown. Petitioner was placed under suspension in the month of December, 1986, along with five other chowkidars, and was issued memo dated 8.1.1987 directing him to show-cause as to why action should not be taken to remove him from service. A criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner in C.C. No. 74/87, before the Judicial ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »