Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Maganti Subrahmanyam and ors. Vs. K. Durga Das and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD462
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have undertaken demolition of the premises belonging to the petitioners on Mahatma Gandhi Road (MG Road) Vijayawada, in utter disregard of the orders dated 6-1-2006 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 723 of 2006 in W.P. No. 596 of 2006.2. The petitioners state that the width of the M.G. Road of Vijayawada, according to the master plan, approved vide G.O. Ms. No. 958, dated 16-12-1969; was 80 feet, and thereafter, the master plan was not revised, either under the A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920, or under the A.P. Land Areas (Development) Act, 1975, after Vijayawada Municipality was upgraded as a Municipal Corporation. Petitioners filed W.P. No. 596 of 2006 alleging inter alia that the 1st respondent issued public notice dated 26-12-2005, in the local daily newspaper, inviting objections for the proposed widening of the said road. They have also contended that the markings were made on the buildings of the ...
Gandreti Premavathi Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD589; 2006(4)ALT689
G. Bhavani Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 25-1-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint her as fair price shop dealer of Modavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ appeal are that by a notification in letter No. 2550/2002 K, dated 4-10-2002, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram (respondent No. 3) invited applications from Open Category (Women) candidates for appointment as fair price shop dealer of Modavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The appellant, respondent No. 4 and Sri Gandreti Bangar Raju submitted their applications. The Mandal Revenue Officer forwarded their applications to respondent No. 3. All of them appeared in the selection held on 25-10-2002. By his proceedings in Roc.No. 2550/ 023, dated 7-11-2002, respondent No. 2 disqualified the a...
S. Mahaboob Basha and anr. Vs. B.R. Mohan Rao (Died) Per L.Rs. and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT632
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No. 54 of 1978 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. Though as against respondents 3, 6 to 11 and 13 the matter was dismissed for default at a particular point of time, the same had been restored by an order dated 14-10-2004 in CMP.No. 14320 of 2004.2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 7-10-1968 with a further prayer to deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiffs. The first and second plaintiffs, viz., B.R. Mohan Rao and G. Sreeramulu, died and their legal representatives were brought on record. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties and having settled the issues, the learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, D.Ws. 1 to 4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-16, X-1 to X-3, C-1 to X-3 and also C-1 to C-7 and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that in view of the fact that the plaintiffs having already...
Polepaka John Noel and ors. Vs. Andhra Bank
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD194
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 10-3-2006 and the Counsel was permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent and file proof of service. Though the respondent was served, none represents on his behalf. The interim stay was no doubt granted for a period of four weeks. Thus, the matter is coming up for admission today.2. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had pointed out that marking of documents-Exs.A6 and A7 is contrary to law. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the document-Ex.A7 is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and further placed strong reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Bhavanarayana v. S. Venkataratnam : AIR1971AP359 and also yet another decision in Thota Venkata Narasamma v. S.V.M. Srinivas...
Bandarupalli Rama Murthy and ors. Vs. Bandarupalli Padmavathi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD677
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel.2. The appellants herein are the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 18 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parchur.3. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.I. D.Ws. 1 to 7 and also Exs.B. 1 to B. 49 and Ex.X. 1, ultimately, decreed the suit so far as half share of the plaintiff is concerned in the plaint A Schedule property.4. The learned Judge, while answering Issue No. 2, came to the conclusion that the life estate of the 2nd defendant got enlarged and she became the absolute owner of the Plaint B Schedule immovable properties. But, however, conflicting findings had been recorded while answering Issue No. 3.5. Contentions of Sri M. Jagcmnadha Sarma: Sri M Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants had taken this Court through the findings recorded and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded in relation to Ex.B. 38 cannot be sustained es...
Mangipudi Lakshminarayana Vs. Mangipudi Varalakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD332
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for maintenance filed by his wife and children. For the sake of convenience, parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant who was having illicit intimacy with Venkataramani wife of Vittal Rao had by suppressing that fact, married the first plaintiff on 18-5-1973 at Srikakulam and begot plaintiffs 2 and 3 out of their wedlock on 10-6-1974 and 30-7-1977 respectively and had taken away the gold belonging to first plaintiff under the pretext of keeping it in Bank and did not return the same, and had neglected and refused to provide maintenance to them. Since defendant is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month as a Government employee, they are seeking past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the first plaintiff, and Rs. 200/- per month to each of plaintiffs 2 and 3.3. The case of the defendant, in brie...
inuganti Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Itham Sriramamurthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALT443
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 24-1-2002 made in A.S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbin, wherein the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1998 made in O.S. No. 192 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, dismissing the suit was reversed.2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 43,000/- together with interest, on the foot of a promissory note executed by the appellant-defendant on 18-11-1993. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed in the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 18-11-1993, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from him to meet agricultural expenses and also to discharge sundry debts. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A-1 -promiss...
Satish Kumar Mor Vs. M.V. Rajeswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC5
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. In both these petitions, the question raised for consideration and the petitioner is one and the same. First respondent in Crl. P. No. 4294 of 2002 is the father and in Crl.P. No. 4295 of 2002, it is his son. As the question raised for consideration is one and the same both the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 105 and 106 of 2000 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.3. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner-accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 from the first respondent in each case. The cheques issued by him towards repayment of the same, were dishonoured. As such after giving statutory notice the de facto complainants filed private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. The petitioner herein filed the present petitions for quashing the proceedings on tw...
Murtaza Moosavi Vs. Hemendra V. Shah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD697; 2006(3)ALT263
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25-8-2004 in I.A. No. 78 of 2003 in R.C.No. 399 of 2000 on the file of the Court of 11 Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.2. The brief fact of the matter leading to filing of the civil revision petition is as follows.3. The first respondent herein filed a rent control case being R.C. No. 399 of 2000 under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the petitioner herein and second respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, bona fide requirement and wastage of the property. During the enquiry, the first respondent as P.W.1 admitted that his clerk (Rent Collector) used to maintain registers and make entries of the rents received. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed an application being I.A.No. 132 of 2002 under Order XI Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) se...
Achutya Subba Rao Vs. Mukthipudi Devasahayam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD694
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner filed O.S.No. 6 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, against the respondent for recovery of certain amount on the strength of two promissory notes, dated 27-5-1996 and 28-12-1998. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. He pleaded that the promissory notes relied upon by the petitioner are only renewals of earlier promissory notes, dated 14-8-1993 and 23-12-1995. The trial of the suit commenced.2. The respondent issued a notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') to the petitioner herein to produce the originals of the promissory notes, dated 14-8-1993 and 23-12-1995. Petitioner replied stating that the said promissory notes have been discharged and consequently delivered to the respondent himself.3. After referring to the correspondence that ensued between himself and the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a Xerox copy of the two promissory notes, referred to above....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »