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.
Boppidi Ailaiah Vs. S. Venkatanarasaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD772
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the Counsel at length.2. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as hereunder :As already discussed that this is a suit for permanent injunction and the petitioner who filed the suit with specific boundaries are different from the suit document i.e., the registered sale deed. Now the petitioner pleads that due to ignorance he has mistakenly mentioned the boundaries. When the petitioner-plaintiff is not aware of the boundaries to his own land for which he filed a suit for permanent injunction and when he wants to change the boundaries to the suit land the reliefs sought by the petitioner-plaintiff for which he filed a suit will be completely changed if the boundaries are changed by virtue of the proposed amendment. Though the nature of the suit is not changed the reliefs of permanent injunction sought by the petitioner-plaintiff for specified land with specific boundaries, if the boundaries are allowed to be changed, will be for a different l...
Kshatri Amminibai Vs. Bedesi Suryanarayana Singh (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT567
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.749 of 1994 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of some items of suit schedule property, and mandatory injunction, as regards another item; against the respondents. The suit was dismissed on 15-03-2000. She filed A.S. No. 111 of 2002 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. During the pendency of the appeal, she filed I.A.No.2517 of 2004, under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to note down certain physical features.2. According to the petitioner, no Advocate Commissioner was appointed during the pendency of the suit due to inadvertence, and thereby, an opportunity, to note the actual state of affairs, prevailing in the suit schedule property, was missed. She further pleaded that after dismissal of the suit, and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents further encroached and made fresh construction...
Sikakolli Venkata Lalitha Vs. Sikakolli Haranath Babu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT628; II(2006)DMC279
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. It is stated that the sister of the petitioner was married to the respondent, and on her death, the petitioner was given in second marriage to the respondent, in the year 1992. The respondentfiledH.M.O.P.No.324of 2004,in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, under Section 13(1)(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), against the petitioner, seeking divorce. He pleaded that ever since his marriage with the petitioner, she was not co-operative, and she hardly lived with him, for a period of one year. It was alleged that the petitioner left the company of the respondent on 10-12-2000 and thereafter, she did not return. The respondent claimed that he is suffering from ailments like Diabetes and Lungs problem and is taking treatment.2. The petitioner alleges that on account of the harassment caused to her by the respondent, she was forced to live at her mother's house at Visa...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. P.S.R. Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD57; 2006(2)ALT354
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.Petitioners:1. Union of India and its officials are the petitioners.2. Respondents2:01. The two respondents in the writ are the retired senior Scientists.2:02. They worked in the Central Government before retirement.3. Facts3:01. The service and the retirement of the respondents with the petitioners is an admitted fact.3:02.They retired with effect from 31-12-1995 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation.3:03. Thereafter, the respondents have submitted the proposals for fixation of pension requesting that their pension may be fixed by calculating their basic pay as Rs. 14,940/-. It is on the revised scale.3:04.Since the pensionary benefits are not released they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad through O.A. No. 384 of 2001 for a direction to the petitioner to release the benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.4. Impugned Order4:01.The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the respondents and directed the petitioners to compute the pe...
N. Anil Kumar Vs. Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (Nims) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD8; 2006(3)ALT599
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the action of the first respondent, in not admitting him in the I-year of Master of Physio Therapy Course (MPT Course). The qualification for admission into the MPT course is a pass in the Bachelor of Physio Therapy Course (BPT Course), and the selection is based on the performance of the candidates, in the entrance examination, held for this purpose. The petitioner studied BPT Course in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi (SVMS), and completed the same by June 2005. The entrance examination for MPT Course was held on 13.11.2005, and the petitioner secured 7th rank.2. The first respondent is accorded the status of State-wide University, under the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order 1974, for short 'the Presidential Order'. In terms of Clause 6 of the Presidential Order, admissions into the first respondent are to be made, by maintaining the ratio of 42:36:22, among the local candida...
Garigipati Kesava Rao Vs. Prathipati Srilakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP184; 2006(3)ALD68; 2006(3)ALT596
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 1366 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the respondent, her husband was examined as P.W.I and the scribe of the pro-note was examined as P.W.2. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A. No. 2191 of 2003 under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking permission to depose as witness-P.W.3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and ultimately, the trial Court passed an order, dated 1-10-2004, allowing the LA. The same is challenged in this civil revision petitioner.2. Ms. G. Ramalakshmi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C is dual in nature. According to her, apart from satisfying itself that there was justifiable reason for belated submission of the application, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the opportunit...
Mylavarapu Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Kollapalli Lakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD56; 2006(4)ALT243
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 326 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the respondent, claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. They pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property, under two registered sale deeds, dated 13-8-1990, from one Smt. G. Annapurnamma and her two sons. Their complaint is that the respondent, who is the immediate neighbour on the southern side, is raising a construction, blocking the air and light through windows and ventilators, in the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the defendant, a document, dated 6-5-1989, is relied upon. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of that document. The trial Court overruled the same, through its order, dated 14-10-2004. The petitioners challenge the said order.2. Sri G. Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the document, in question, purports to recogni...
P. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Chirravuri Gokarnachari (Died) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD97; 2006(3)ALT609
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent, who is no more, filed OS No. 214 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, against the petitioner herein, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, he died, and the 2nd respondent was brought on record as legal representative. The claim of the respondents is that the suit schedule property was assigned to them, by the Government, in the year 1992, and despite the same, the petitioner is claiming title over it.2. Petitioner filed written-statement, opposing the claim of the respondents. He pleaded that his predecessors in title purchased the land, way back in the year 1948, and he in turn, purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1999. He further pleaded that the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent, under the provisions of the A.P. Home Steads Act (for short 'the Act') is contrary to the law, and the prescribe...
Pamujula Narayana Vs. Ramachandruni Malakondaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD278; 2006(4)ALT247
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property (suit property) executed by the first respondent in his capacity as the holder of an earlier agreement of sale in respect of the suit property belonging to Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao and also in the capacity as the General Power of Attorney of Velagapudi Seshagiri. Rao, who is said to have died even prior to the filing of the suit. It is to be noted that the plaint is silent about Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao being the owner of the suit property and reads as if first respondent himself is the owner of the suit property. In view of the proposals to acquire the plaint schedule land for construction of a thermal power station, second respondent also is made a party to the suit.2. After filing of the suit revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 274 of 1995 seeking leave of the Court to implead the daughter of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao (3r...
Konda Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1870; 2006FAJ182
ORDERP. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 18 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur.2. The petitioners herein were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(1) and 2(ia) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.3. The allegation against the petitioners is that when they kept for sale the Dalda original wanaspathy in their shop the Food Inspector took samples and sent for analysis and the analyst opined that the red units shall not be lighter than 2.0 red units in 1 cm cell, but the sample contained red units of 1.4 and therefore the sample does not conform to the red units in respect of Baudouin's test for sesame oil and therefore adulterated.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the samples were taken on 2-2-1999 and were sent for analysis on 3-2-1999 and the Food Inspector rece...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »