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.
Syed Saleema Bee Vs. Syed Noorjahan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD721; 2006(2)ALT637
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S. No.167 of 2001. The first respondent herein filed the suit being O.S. No. 167 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for direction to the second respondent herein to pay the emoluments accrued in favour of one Syed Hussain and for other reliefs. The petitioner herein filed interlocutory application being I.A.No.490 of 2002 under Order XIV, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) praying the trial Court to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. By impugned order, dated 31-7-2002, the trial Court dismissed the application. This civil revision petition is filed against the said order.2. Syed Hussain was a Senior Goods Driver in South Central Railway, the second respondent herein. He died on 10-8-1999. According to the first respondent, Syed Hussain married her and therefore she alone is entitled for retiral benefits of her husband and hence the suit. In her ...
Meda Anjamma and anr. Vs. Vikram China Veeraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD710; 2006(2)ALT699
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by order, dated 25-7-2003, in O.S. No. 27 of 1995, they filed the present civil revision petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. The first petitioner is the wife of second petitioner, and is daughter of the first respondent. The petitioners filed the suit being O.S.No.27 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of items 1 to 3 of suit schedule property. Item 1 is the land to an extent of Acs.0.80 and items 2 and 3 are the lands to an extent of Acs.0.60 each. These agricultural lands are identified by patta No. 26 in survey No. 359 admeasuring Acs.5.59 (total extent). At the time of the trial, the plaintiffs sought to mark an agreement of sale, dated 4-4-1979, executed in their favour by respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 1 to 3). An objection was raised by the Counsel for defendants 4 to 107 respondents 4 10 herein ...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Balagangadhara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC252; 2006(4)ALD661; 2006(3)ALT45
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed OP. No. 493 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge's Court, Anantapur, claiming compensation against the appellant and the 2nd respondent. It was alleged that on 6-1-2004, the 1st respondent boarded the van bearing No. AP-22-T-8838 at Kurnool, along with sheep, with an intention to go to Banglore Market. It was alleged that when the van reached Rapthadu Village, it was being driven in a high speed and on losing the control, it dashed against a stationed lorry and thereby, he sustained grievous injuries. In that O.P., he filed I.A. No. 708 of 2005 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability. The application was resisted by the appellant alone, and the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent herein, remained ex parte. On a consideration of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the I.A. on 3-11-2005 and awarded a sum...
Mulakalavathy and ors. Vs. Suddala Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD358
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The C.R.P. is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order made in LA. No. 2583/2005 in O.S. No. 987/2002 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The respondents are defendants in the said suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the said application to implead Madadi Ravinder Reddy, the attorney and agreement-holder representing the other plaintiffs as 4th plaintiff in the said suit. The learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the said proposed party has no interest in the subject-matter. Hence, the C.R.P.2. Sri Prabhaker Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that the self-same attorney-agreement-holder had sworn to the affidavit and had explained the reasons why he intends to come on record. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the document in question, the power of attorney, and would mai...
Kavitam Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD273; [2006(109)FLR1155]
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Rural Bank. The second respondent was employed by the petitioner, initially, as a clerk in the year 1967. Subsequently, he was promoted as Secretary in the year 1976. A charge memo, dated 25.5.1988, was issued, wherein as many as 12 charges were levelled against him, in relation to acts and omissions on his part, while discharging the duties. Ultimately, through an order, dated 16.6.1988, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, before the Labour Court, Guntur, as I.D. No. 369 of 1990. Through its award, dated 10.10.1996, the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal, against the petitioner, and directed his reinstatement into service, with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The same is challenged in this writ petition.2. Petitioner contends that the second respondent was discharging managerial functions, and as such, he did not answ...
Mrs. G. Seetha Kamrajj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(AP)487; [2006]284ITR54(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a reference made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the following question has been referred :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in construing the sub-lease agreement and holding that the deposit of Rs. 4,30,000 received by the assessee was a consideration for granting sub-lease of the assessee's rights and not a payment of monthly rent in advance and as such liable to tax as short-term capital gains ?3. The facts, which gave rise to the reference, are that the assessee took on lease for 99 years a building from her husband and as per the terms of the deed, the lease was to start from June 1, 1986. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 as premium for obtaining lease and was supposed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The lessee had also a right to create a sub-lease and she actually created a sub-lease in favour of M/s. Bhavani Shankar and Gopi Venkata San...
T. Balaji Rao Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)725; 2006CriLJ3799; I(2007)DMC297
ORDERP. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 1319 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi.2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the second respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the said C. C. No. 1319 of 2000 and they will hereinafter be referred in this order as accused and the de facto complainant.3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:The marriage between the accused and the de facto complainant took place on 12-8-1998 at Tirupathi and after the marriage on the same day the accused took the de facto complainant to Chennai. On 22-10-1998 the de facto complainant Radharani filed a report in Alipiri Police Station alleging that on the date of the marriage an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 13 sovereigns of gold were given to the accused by the mother of the de facto complainant besides bearing marriage expenses and from next day onwards the accused, his mother Devaki Bai, hi...
Allokam Peddabbayya and anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP236; 2006(2)ALD629; 2006(3)ALT233; I(2007)BC73
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. These two second appeals are filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and arise out of a single suit - O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. S.A. No. 1603 of 2004 is filed being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 2-7-2004 made in A.S. No. 65 of 2002 on the file of the learned Vin Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, while S.A. No. 1604 of 2004 is filed being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 2-7-2004 in A.S. No. 168 of 2002 on the file of the learned VJJI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur. In the said appeals filed by defendants 1 and 2, the Judgment and Decree in the above suit - O.S. No. 96 of 1999 - decreeing the suit, were set aside and the appeals were allowed.3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the above suit, which was filed seeking a preliminary decree determining the amoun...
G. Swarna Gouri and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.A.D. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT664
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. These ten writ petitions raise questions, which are interconnected and arose out of various orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in various O.As.2. The services under the State of Andhra Pradesh are broadly classified into State Services and Subordinate Services. The services of the employees falling under the category of State Service are being utilized in 19 Departments of the State. Such services are governed by certain common rules and also special rules in certain cases. The details which may not be necessary for the present purpose except to state that in each of the service invariably a provision is made stipulating a minimum percentage of personnel that must be recruited by way of direct recruitment from the open market and others by way of either promotion or recruitment by transfer. The various posts falling under various State Services are once again classified as Group-I, Group-II etc. In the instant case we are concerned with the r...
Appani Ramachandram and anr. Vs. Cheruku Vijayalaxmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD251; 2006(4)ALT235
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel.2. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that though the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where stay to be granted as prayed for Under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned Counsel also would submit that in view of the fact that Writ Petition No. 26378 of 1999 is pending on the file of this Court, serious prejudice would be caused if further proceedings are proceeded within O.S. No. 19 of 1999.3. Per contra, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel would maintain that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondent for perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property on the strength of the impounded un-registered sale deed. The learned Counsel also had narrated several of the details and would comment that several applications were moved and such orders were...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »