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.
Mohammed YousufuddIn Vs. Md. Azizuddin
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD156; 2006(3)ALT627
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ramachandra Prasad, Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Purna Chander Rao, Counsel representing the respondent.2. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 6-1-2006 and granted interim order for a limited period which was subsequently extended.3. The revision petitioner herein/ judgment-debtor/defendant filed E.A. No. 256/ 2005 in E.P.No. 717/2004 in O.S.No. 400/97 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for dismissal of the E.P. as having become infructuous as the decree sought to be executed is a nullity. The main ground of attack is that the matter was referred to arbitration to the elders of Meemohalla Committee, Warangal prior to the institution of the suit and the Award made became final and binding on the parties by virtue of. Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 199...
Mallareddi Madana Mohanarao @ Konda and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)698; 2006CriLJ2332
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in S. C. No. 399 of 1995.2. There are 8 appellants and they are A-1 to A-7 and A-9 before the Sessions Court.3. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that during the pendency of the appeal A-3 and A-7 died and their case is to be abated.4. Thus, in this appeal we have A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-9.5. The charge against the appellants is for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC.6. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants for all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years each for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC apart from imposing payment of fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default imprisonment for three months and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs...
Sjk Steel Plant Limited Vs. Government of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT209(AP)
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This is another round of litigation by the petitioner, who has so far failed to persuade the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short 'the Board') to exercise power under proviso to Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') in its favour.2. Petitioner imported certain machinery and equipment for setting up of an integrated steel plant at Tadipatri, Anantapur District. The machinery of the petitioner was kept in the private licensed bonded warehouse. Some of the machinery was cleared on payment of Customs duty and interest payable thereon, but the remaining machinery was not removed from the bonded warehouse till June, 2001. After moving out the machinery from the bonded warehouse, the petitioner made an application to the Board for waiver of interest amounting to Rs. 4.11 crores. The same was rejected on the ground that there was no special reason to waive the interest.3. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Board in Writ Peti...
K. Sreenivasa Rao Vs. H. Gangadhar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas555(AP); [2007]75SCL256(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. These appeals are filed against the common order passed by the Company Judge in C.P. Nos. 94, 105 and 106 of 2001, dated 7-6-2002.3. The allegation of the company petitioners against the respondents was that they had violated the provisions contained in Section 108A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act'), which imposes restriction of acquisition of certain shares and since there has been violation of provision contained in Section 108A, an offence had been committed by the respondents in terms of Section 108I and could be punished with the imprisonment for a term which could extend up to three years, or with fine, up to Rs. 50,000, or with both.4. The learned Company Judge gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the Magistrate.5. The learned Counsel submits that in case of violation of Section 108A, it is the Company Court which has got jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that whether there is any vi...
P.B.B. Narasimha Rao Vs. Environment Protection Training and Search In ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD705; 2006(3)ALT199; [2006(109)FLR945]
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Administration and Accounts Officer in the respondents-Institute. He was placed under suspension through orders dated 6-6-2005. This was followed by issuance of charge memo dated 17-6-2005. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo, on 21-7-2005. The disciplinary authority appointed one Mr. K. Kumar, as an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, one Mr. T.V.Satish Babu, Administration Incharge of the Institute, was nominated as Presenting Officer.2. The petitioner raised an objection as regards the appointment of Presenting Officer, through a petition dated 29-10-2005. His contention was that, according to the prescribed procedure, a Presenting Officer must be superior, in rank, and the one, appointed in the instant case, is subordinate to him. The objection was overruled by the Enquiry Officer, through a detailed order dated 10-11-2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the superior authority, and did not participa...
Pabba Shiva Koti and anr. Vs. Uma Maheswari Boiled Rice Unit and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD830; 2006(2)ALT566
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri B. Ghaneshyam Das Mandhani, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs.2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 8-12-2004. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs, who are contesting the matter, had entered appearance. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein-plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No. 9 of 2000 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Warangal, filed an application I.A.No. 886 of 2004 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Code') to amend the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession and also permit them to pay the necessary Court fee and suitably amend the plaint. The same was resisted by the revision petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. But, however, the learned Judge by order, dated 30-8-2004 allowed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petiti...
Gouru Nagalaxmi Vs. Manager, Lic of India, Miryalaguda Branch and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD265; 2006(2)ALT642
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S.No.36 of 2001, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, against the respondents, for recovery of the amount covered by policy, taken out in the name of her husband, late Narahari. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner completed her side of evidence. On behalf of respondents, two applications were filed. I.A.No.676 of 2005 was filed, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to record the cross-examination of Dr. Vijaya Bhaskar, M.D.D.M, Consultant Pulmonologist of Medwin Hospital. I.A.No.675 of 2005 was filed, with a prayer to direct the said hospital, to produce the case sheet No. 9901351, before the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner resisted the application. Through a common order, dated 8-12-2005, the trial Court allowed the applications. Hence, these two revisions.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.3. In view of the recent amendment made to C.P.C., th...
Varanasi Vital Rao Vs. Jallepalli Janardhanarao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD127; 2006(3)ALT371
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 23-12-2004 made in IAGR No. 3530 of 2004 in cross-objections in A.S. No. 81 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.2. The petitioner is the 1st respondent in the above appeal and plaintiff in O.S. No. 126 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amudalavalasa. Respondent No. l herein is the appellant in the above appeal and 2nd defendant in the suit. Respondent No. 2 is the 2nd respondent in the appeal and 1st defendant in the suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff (petitioner herein) laid a suit for recovery of certain amount on the foot of a promissory note. The suit was decreed as against the 2nd defendant and was dismissed as against the 1st defendant, father of the 2nd defendant, on the ground that his signature was forged. Defendant No...
Motte Rajaram Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD199; 2006(2)ALT477
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'C.P.C'), is before us by way of reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court expressing his view that the appeal suit A.S. No. 12 of 2004, which was filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, was not maintainable and, as a matter of fact, the said appeal suit A.S.No.12 of 2004 ought to have been filed before this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge further opined that if an appeal is filed before the District Judge, the same amounts to providing parallel appeals under the Act and hence, the learned Single Judge was of the prima facie view that the appeal suit filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, was not maintainable. However, in order to have an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect, the matter had been referred to a Division Be...
Dr. S. Vijaya Rama Rao and anr. Vs. Secunderabad Cantonment Board
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD260
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioners claim to be owners of residential plots bearing Nos. 26/1, 26/2 and 26/3 in GLR Survey No. 625, Vighneswara Co-operative Housing Society, Sikh Road, Secunderabad, respectively. According to them the land forms part of approved layout of M/s. Vighneswara Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, the Society). The petitioners made an application on 18.7.1992 Under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act 1924 (for short, the Act) informing the respondents their intention to construct residential houses and submitted plans with the application/notice. The respondent returned the same on 19.9.1992 on the ground that a writ petition, being W.P. No. 18389 of 1989 filed by some of the members of the Society questioning the revised layout plan, is pending before the High Court. The petitioners alleged that they waited for a period of thirty days and having not received any rejection order proceeded with the construction under 'deemed permission' in accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »