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.
Mohd. Janimiya Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD180; 2006(3)ALT499
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-APSRTC as Driver in 1988. While working as such, on 23-5-1993, the bus driven by him on the route Patancheru-Kesaram met with an accident, in which a 14-year-old boy sustained grievous injury to his left leg, resulting in its amputation. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The charges of rash and negligent driving and driving of the vehicle with lack of anticipation, having been proved in the enquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 19-10-1993 of respondent No. 3. Assailing the said order of removal, he preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, who vide his order dated 23-3-1994 allowed the same, set aside the order of removal and ordered his reinstatement into service fixing his salary at the minimum scale.2. While so, the criminal case in C.C. No. 456 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Munsif M...
Muddasani Rajamba Vs. Nandre Bhaskar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD690; 2006(5)ALT258
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.Heard Sri K. Balagopal, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Smt. S.V. Indira, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. CRP No. 1124 of 2006 is preferred as against the order dated 28-12-2005 made in LA. No. 438 of 2005 in O.S. No. 485 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal.3. CRP No. 1126 of 2006 is preferred against the order made in LA. No. 437 of 2005 in O.S. No. 483 of 2002, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal.4. In both the civil revision petitions the revision petitioner is the same and the defendant in both the suits. The respondent in both the civil revision petitions no doubt are plaintiffs.5. Inasmuch as common question is involved in both the civil revision petitions, both the C.R.Ps. are disposed of by this common order.6. The revision petitioner as petitioner-defendant moved the applications aforesaid under Order VII Rule 11 of th...
Gooti Nagarathnamma Vs. Chennakeshapu Venkamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD766
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 22-9-2005 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad.2. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 260 of 2003 against the 5th respondent herein, for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal parts and allotment of a share to her. A preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-2004, Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 244 of 2004 for final decree. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and he, in turn, submitted a report, and the parties did not file any objections to it. The trial Court passed a final decree on 6-10-2004, in terms of the report of the Commissioner.3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed an application before the trial Court, for impleading them as defendants 2 to 5, in the suit. They claimed interest in the suit schedule property, and intended to oppose the proceedings. Through the order under revision-, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.4. Sri Brahmaiah Chowda...
Tummalapalli Anasuya Vs. Yenduri Parvathi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP388; 2006(4)ALD266
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.S.A. is filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment dated 274-2005 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam, in C.M.A. No. 28 of 2004. The C.M.S.A. was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam2. The appellant herein filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. That very property was one of the items of the Schedule, in O.S. No. 84 of 1992 filed by the 1st respondent herein in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for the relief of partition. The appellant figured as defendant No. 1 in that suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 13-11-1998 in that suit, and the appellant is said to have filed A.S. No. 770 of 1998 in this Court against the preliminary decree.3. The appellant filed O.S. No. 12 of 2002 on 12-11-2001. The 1st respondent f...
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for Essar, Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Chelik ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD199; 2006(6)ALT26
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of revisions, the Land Acquisition Officer, appointed by the Government, for the purpose of acquiring the lands for the benefit of M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Kakinada, challenges the individual orders passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in execution proceedings. The lands of the respondents herein have been acquired for the benefit of M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Kakinada, by taking recourse to the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The awards are passed under Section 11 of the Act. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the respondents sought references under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner made references to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.2. The trial Court disposed of the Original Petitions, enhancing the compensation, but denying the benefit of interest on the solatium and additional market value. The respondents herein filed individual appea...
Managing Committee, Masjid-e-ibrahimia Rep. by Secretary, A.M. Yousuf ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP330; 2006(4)ALD769; 2006(4)ALT736
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 20-07-2005, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, rejecting the E.P. (SR) No. 4479 of 2005 in O.S. No. 859 of 1974.2. The petitioner-plaintiff (Masjid) filed suit in O.S. No. 859 of 1974 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent-defendant (Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Limited), for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 31-10-1977. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner-plaintiff filed appeal in A.S. No. 455 of 1977on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who, vide judgment dated 16-06-1978, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the said judgment, the respondent-defendant preferred second appeal. A learned Judge of this ...
S. Haridas Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas34(AP); [2007]78SCL145(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by 1 the learned company judge in an application filed under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The company court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him with fine of Rs. 100 for each day's default. In all, he was fined with Rs. 3,12,00.2. A preliminary objection is raised by learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-official liquidator that the appeal is not maintainable, in view of the bar created under Section 483 of the Act itself. Section 483 of the Act deals with appeals from orders, and according to learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-official liquidator, this section bars appeals, in cases where a person has been convicted in terms of Section 454 of the Act.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Section 483 of the Act encompasses all sorts of orders passed by the company judge, and appeals are available against all those o...
Collector of Cus. Vs. Sri Manchukonda Sreeramulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT407(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This is a reference made under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (for brevity 'the Act') to answer the following question:Whether the issue of a show cause notice would amount to commencement of proceedings within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and whether service of the show cause notice prior to the date of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is a legal requirement for continuance of the proceedings in terms of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act?3. The reference has been made at the instance of the Revenue, as the Tribunal decided the matter against the Revenue on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Rayala Corporation v. Director of Enforcement : 1970CriLJ588 .4. Record discloses that on 24-12-1989 there was a search of the business and residential premises of the assessee and gold was seized. On 4-6-1990, a show cause notice was given according to the Revenue in te...
P. Mallaiah Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Secretary, Irrigation and C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD148; 2006(2)ALT742
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner was assigned agriculture land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in survey No. 441/33 in Burgampad village inKhammam District. An extent of Acs.200.00 of land including the petitioner's land got submerged in Domalavagu tank constructed by the Government. Alleging that their lands were utilized without due process of law, some land owners filed W.P.No.3261 of 1987. While the same was pending before this Court, the first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) and also published the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that though the land of the petitioner was included in the notification, the respondents did not pass any order and compensation was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass award to pay the compensation under the Act.2. The second respondent filed counter...
Rafeeq Ahmed Vs. Hameed Ahmed Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD660
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 76 of 2002 against respondents 1 to 8, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, at Godavarikhani. The 1st respondent is his brother, and respondents 2 to 8 are said to be the tenants. The petitioner claimed the relief of partition against the 1st respondent, and the relief of perpetual injunction against respondents 2 to 8, restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. In their written statement, respondents 2 to 8 pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property from the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner.2. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 179 of 2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint, to add the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession against the respondents 2 to 8. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 31-7-2003. Hence, this C.R.P.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »