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.
K. Vinayak Reddy and anr. Vs. Shriram Chits Limited, Branch I and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD205; 2006(6)ALT47
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 543 of 2002 against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad for recovery of amount, on the strength of a chit transaction. It was pleaded that being the prized subscribers, the petitioners were paid a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-, and having received the same, the petitioners failed to pay the instalments. The trial of the suit is in progress, and recording of evidence on both the sides is said to have been Concluded.2. The first respondent filed LA. No. 1205 of 2004 with a prayer to reopen the evidence, and I.A. No. 1206 of 2005 under Rule 17 of Order IV of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to amend the plaint.3. It was pleaded that soon after the petitioners emerged as prized subscribers, they instructed the first respondent to invest the amount in M/s. Shriram Investments Limited, and accordingly, investment was made in the names of the persons indicated by the...
Chunchu Narayana Vs. K. Srinivasulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD73
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 212 of 2000, in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the second respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of two items of properties shown in the suit schedule. Petitioner is the mother of the second respondent. He filed I.A.No. 701 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., to get himself impleaded as defendant No. 2, in that suit.2. According to the petitioner, his father made a settlement at a time, when he was only two years old, creating life interest, in respect of item No. 2 of the suit schedule property, in the second respondent herein, and vested remainder in him. He urged that whatever may be the rights and obligations of the respondents herein, vis-a-vis the first item of the suit schedule, the second respondent did not have the right to enter into any transaction, or sale, as regards the second item of the suit schedule property. The appli...
Verukatachala Finance Vs. Devabhaktani Suryachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD123
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These four civil revision petitions arise out of four applications filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 51 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.2. The petitioner filed the suit against respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,90,226/-. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a bus bearing No. AP 37 U 5234 under a hire-purchase agreement. It is further stated that out of 36 installments, the respondents 1 and 2 paid only 12 installments, and thereafter committed default.3. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed LA. No. 1372 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short 'CPC') and got attached, an item of immovable property. Thereafter, the third respondent herein filed I.A. No. 433 of 2000 for raising the attachment, and pleaded that respondents 1 and 2 have no right over the said item of the property. The inter...
Ravikanth Industries and anr. Vs. the State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC203; 2006CriLJ2685
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. Respondent No. 2-M/s. Jainex Limited filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioners-accused in C.C. No. 1539 of 2000 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secundarabad. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners had issued cheque to M/s. TATA SSL Limited bearing No. 464651 dated 8-9-2000 for an amount of Rs. 80,237/-. It is stated that the petitioners' transactions with M/s. TATA SSL Limited have no manner of connection with the respondent and the respondent or M/s. TATA SSL Limited cannot file any complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioners are not liable to pay any amounts to M/s. TATA SSL Limited. It is stated that even if the averments made in the complaint are to be taken on its face val...
Nirujogi Appala Naidu and ors. Vs. Smt. Nirujogi Roja
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3230
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothavalsa, Vizianagaram District, dated 29-12-2005, in Crl. M.P. No. 1260 of 2005 in C.C. No. 52 of 2005.2. Summons were issued to all the accused in C.C. No. 52 of 2005, and except A-4, all others were served and present. The summons of A-4 returned unserved by the Advocate Commissioner stating that A-4 is not available in the address. A-4 is the daughter of A-5 and A-6 and it is represented that she has purposefully evaded to receive the summons. It is obvious that A-4 is purposefully evading to receive the summons, therefore, the learned Magistrate felt that it is a fit case to proceed against A-4 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P.C.'). The complainant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1260 of 2005 to take further steps against A-4 under Section 82, Cr. P.C. and it is allowed. Ultimately, the trial Court directed issue of proclamation against...
Hedaplast Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Charminar Division ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC49(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned Government Pleader for the respondents.2. In both these writ petitions, same questions of law and fact are raised. The petitioner is the same in both the cases and the controversy revolves around the assessment year 2000-01 and assessment year 2001-02. In the two writ petitions, the impugned orders were passed, on a revision, by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. The petitioner is dealing in plastic made syntex water tanks. His contention is that the goods are taxable under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and not under entry 187 of the First Schedule to the Act. The revisional authority by way of the assessment has taxed the goods under entry 187 of the First Schedule to the Act, whereas, they were taxable under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act at the rate of four per c...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›