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.
G. Nagaraju Vs. G.T. Shivaprakash and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP211
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in O.S. No. 86 of 1958 in respect of a shop. Later, in 2001, he filed O.S. No. 329 of 2001 seeking Injunction against the respondents in respect of a house. Respondents filed LA. No. 203 of 2005 seeking joint trial of both the suits. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. So, they carried the matter in revision to this Court in C.R.P. No. 2663 of 2005 where the learned Judge of this Court, by his order dated 8-8-2005, ordered joint trial of both the suits. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed LA. No, 729 of 2005 to eschew the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W. 1 and the chief examination of D.W.2 in O.S. No. 86 of 1998 on the ground that their evidence does not cover the issues that arise for consideration in O.S. No. 329 of 2001. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court by the order under revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitione...
E. Sahadeva Reddy Vs. Djp Finance and Chits and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP232; 2006(3)ALD742
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent/D. Hr. who got the immovable property belonging to the revision-petitioner attached before judgment filed an execution petition for sale of the property in execution of the decree obtained by him against the revision-petitioner, who, on receipt of sale notice, filed his counter inter alia contending that as the appeal preferred by him against the decree 'is pending, and since the petition seeking stay of execution filed in that appeal is likely to come up for hearing, further proceedings in the execution petition may be postponed. By the order dated 4-9-2003, the executing Court over-ruled the objections, and posted the execution petition for settlement of terms of sale to 17-9-2003, and thereafter settled the terms of sale and ordered sale of the property attached before judgment. Thereafter revision-petitioner filed E.A. No. 942 of 2003 seeking issuance of fresh proclamation by fixing the upset price of the property to be sold at Rs. 22,54,...
Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)585; 2006CriLJ2168
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Prejudice of the accused in criminal trial for non supply of the witness statement is the core question in this appeal.1.01 Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 : 1947 (48) Cri LJ 533The above landmark pronouncement is the answer.1.02 It is rightly argued by the learned senior counsel Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the appellant that the above decision is the guiding principle in the Criminal Justice System even by now being relied by Apex Court in the recent Judgments.1.03 Incidentally several other factual details and the niceties of the procedural and substantive law of crime are also high-lighted by Sri, C. Padmanabha Reddy and indeed they are feast to the ears of the Bench and Bar.1.04 As usual and as is being happening regularly before this Court, the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor remained absent. Sri. Ramalingeswara Reddy a learned young colleague of the learned prosecutor represented the respondent State by perusing the Co...
J. Ramalakshmi Vs. Nalamari Lakshmi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT218
G. Chandraiah, J.1. The appellant is the 1sl respondent, owner of the vehicle, in M.V.O.P. No. 1585 of 2001. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company.2. The appeal is filed aggrieved by the award, dated 13-2-2004 in M.V.O.P. No. 1585 of 2001. The Tribunal below, against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- under various heads, awarded an amount of Rs. 45,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award the appellant, owner of the vehicle, filed this appeal.3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in M.V.O.P. No. 1585 of 2001.4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-claimant was aged about 25 years, working as labourer and earning an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month prior to the accident. On 26-8-2001 at about 17-30 hours after completing her work, she boarded a tipper bearing registration No. 31W459 at Pydivada Agraharam to go to her village and on the way at about 18-00 hours the driver of the tipper drove the vehicle at a high speed...
Government of A.P. Vs. L.P. Sashi Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD729; 2006(2)ALT545
Bilal Nazki, J.1. A writ petition being W.P. No. 15247 of 2005 was filed challenging a Government Memo dated 4.7.2005. The writ petition was allowed and this appeal has been filed by the Government of A.P. The parties shall be referred to as they appear in the writ petition.2. It is contended in the writ affidavit filed by 1st petitioner that he had obtained a deed of assignment of decree of undivided share with respect to the land situated in Sy.No.57 of Hashrnathpet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which formed part of Item No. 2 of Schedule IVA annexed to the preliminary decree dated 28.6.1963 passed in C.S.No.14/1958. The deed of assignment of decree dated 21.5.2005 was stamped and also registered as a document (pending) before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy, Moosapet. An objection was taken by the authorities on the question of sufficiency of stamp duty despite the petitioner gave an undertaking to pay deficiency stamp duty, if necessary and in accordance wi...
Chief Security Commissioner/Rpf/Grc, Sc Railways and ors. Vs. Pamu Ven ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD771; [2006(109)FLR783]
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri S. Satyam Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having heard the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the only point that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the respondents/writ petitioners are entitled to the interest on the retiremental benefits as awarded by the learned Single Judge.3. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents/writ petitioners were the employees as members of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and subsequently having charged for misconduct and neglect of duty, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and ultimately, after completion of the same, they were imposed penalty of compulsory retirement of service. The appeals filed against the said orders also stood rejected. Hence, the writ petition. Though, several contentions were raised in the writ...
Dasari Lakshmi Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT585
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The petition is filed by mother of an alleged detenue in the nature of Habeas Corpus.2. It is stated that the alleged detenue was married to respondent No. 4 on 24-5-2002. After marriage, the alleged detenue was harassed and ill-treated by her mother-in-law and other unofficial respondents. Respondents No. 4 informed her on phone on 27-10-2004 that the alleged detenue was not well and he had taken her to the hospital at 9 a.m. She did not return home. Then the petitioner and her husband went to Guntur to the house of respondent No. 4 and made enquiries about the detenue. There was no proper response from respondent No. 4 and other family members. Therefore, they went to Police Station and gave a report. The Police registered a case of missing Woman, but did not register the case under dowry harassment. They came to know that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 caused disappearance of her daughter. They were being called to Police Station and let off. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 we...
Apsrtc Rep. by Its Regional Manager Vs. Budhi Mani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC121; 2006(3)ALT46
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. Aggrieved by the order dt. 29-1-2002 passed by the court of VI Additional District Judge, Visakahapatnam in M.O.P. No. 1194/ 1999 in granting compensation to the claimant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation {for short 'the Corporation') filed the appeal.3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20-9-1998 the claimant along with wife and mother-in-law boarded the bus of the corporation bearing No. A.P. 10Z 3332 at R.T.C. Complex, Visakhapatnam to go to Kakinada. At about 9.30 a.m., when the bus reached Namavaram village, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and also drove on the extreme right side and dashed a lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 U 1135, which was stopped on the extreme left side of the road, As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture to his right leg and he also sustained other multiple and external grievous injuries and there was hea...
Indian Bank, Mogalrajapuram Branch Vs. V.K. Avadani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP252; 2006(3)ALD796; 2006(3)KLT673
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri P. Shiv Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in all these three appeals and also Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. Since all these three appeals involve a common question, they are being taken up together for disposal.3. After hearing the learned Counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the main question which arises for consideration is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, who as an advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant-defendant, is entitled to the suit claim towards his legal fee.4. The few facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals, are as follows:The respondent-plaintiff, who is a practising advocate, filed O.S.No. 62 of 2000 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, seeking recovery of Rs. 10,25,170/- being the principal and interest due by th...
Sai Priya Construction Company Vs. K. Anantha Kumari Satya Raju and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT70; 2006(1)ARBLR569(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Though the matter is listed under the caption 'Interlocutory', with the consent of both the learned Counsel, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is disposed of by this judgment.3. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dt. 11-7-2005, passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court), dismissing the Arbitration O.P.No. 1031 of 2003 as not maintainable.4. The appellant is the builder and the respondents are the owners of disputed property.5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant and the respondents will be referred to as 'the builder' and 'the owners' respectively.6. The backdrop, in brief, appears to be that there was an agreement between the builder and the owners to develop the land of the owners bearing Plot Nos.5 and 6, situated at Chikoti Gardens, Hyderabad. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »