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.
M.V. Savani (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. M.D. Savani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP322; 2006(4)ALD279; 2006(4)ALT776
D. Appa Rao, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 275 of 1987 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 8-9-1998, cancelling the earlier decree obtained in O.S. No. 1265 of 1984, dated 30-6-1986 with costs.2. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression.3. It is the case of the plaintiff-M.D. Savani, respondent herein, that he purchased a site covered by premises bearing Municipal No. 14-3-251/1, admeasuring 1289 square yards, situated at Gosha Mahal, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed, dated 10-5-1960, from the defendant for consideration and since then he has been in possession of the property wherein he constructed a building surrounded by compound wall. He leased it out to M/s. Savani Transport Private Limited (for brevity 'S.T.P.L.'), in which, he was also a Director initially on a rent of Rs. 500...
Dammalapati Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju @ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD675
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners filed O.S.No. 451 of 2004 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), at Visakhapatnam, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents, in turn, filed a counter claim, for the relief of recovery of possession, in respect of that very property.2. The respondents filed I.A.No. 201 of 2005 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for the purpose of localizing the suit schedule property, with the help of competent surveyor, and to undertake certain ancillary steps. The trial Court allowed the LA. through order, dated 10-6-2005. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.3. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of localizing the suit schedule property, much before the trial commenced, would amount to a step, enabli...
Goondla Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)916; (2007)5VST169(AP)
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Petitioner-A1 filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated against him for the offence under Sections 448, 380, 384, 506, IPC in C. C. No. 356 of 1996 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar.2. The second respondent-de facto complainant filed a compliant before the Magistrate and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. who after investigation filed a report before the Magistrate. On the protest application filed by the complainant, the Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence and issued process. On issuing process the petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 54 of 1997 seeking dismissal of the complaint alleging that in view of bar contained under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with Section 197, Cr.P.C. without prior sanction, petitioner, who was working as Assistant Commissioner (...
Salvaji Prabhakar Rao Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC322
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr. Jitender Rao, the Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Venkat Reddy, the Counsel for R-2-complainant and the learned P.P.2. The only question raised by the Counsel for petitioner Mr. Jitender Rao is that there was no issuance of statutory notice as contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein-after in abort referred to as 'N.I. Act'). The learned Counsel would maintain that even if the allegations made in the complaint, if taken on their face value, in view of the specific allegation, made that a notice was straight away issued by way of paper publication, the same cannot be said to be in compliance, with the provisions of the N.I. Act.3. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, would contend that these aspects may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage.4. Mr. Venkat Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R-2-complainant would submit that it is no doubt true that there is no specific allegation in the complaint that attempts ...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. T. Narasimha Murthy Raju and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2054; 2006(4)ALD27; 2006(3)ALT613; (2007)ILLJ925AP
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act').2. The 1st respondent was employed as a driver on a tractor bearing No. AP-31T-6926, by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed W.C. No. 31 of 2005, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Authority'), the authority designated under the Act. He pleaded that on 1-4-2005, he took the tractor and trailer to a workshop, on the instructions of 2nd respondent, and while detaching the trailer from the tractor, his fingers of the right hand were crushed, and later on, they were amputated. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,73,163-00. He placed reliance upon the certificate issued by the doctor, who treated him, wherein the disability was certified at 25%. The appellant herein was impleaded as one of the parties, being the insurer of the tractor and trailer.3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, almost admitting the ...
Kamran Mirza and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT794
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 19-08-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, the 1st respondent herein.2. Petitioners own certain lands and other immovable properties within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad, in various survey numbers. They filed individual declarations as required under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Since the petitioners have a common ancestry and source of title to the property, the 2nd respondent processed the declarations of the petitioners, jointly. He passed on order dated 28-01-1994, under Section 8(4) of the Act, holding that each of the petitioners is liable to surrender different extents of lands totalling to 89,170.89 Sq.mts.3. Petitioners filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, before the 1st respondent. Their complaint was that the 2nd respondent did not give an opportunity to them, before passing orders under ...
Hemarajani Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Store Purchase Organisation Rep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT700
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18-3-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 -The Central Store Purchase Organisation, Maharashtra (Mumbai) and quashed order dated 17-7-2004 passed by The Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council, Hyderabad (respondent No. 2).2. The appellant filed claim petition under The Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') for issuance of a direction to the non-petitioner (respondent No. 1) to pay an amount of Rs. 1,61,18,324/-. Notice of the petition was duly served on respondent No. 1, but no one appeared on its behalf. However, respondent No. 1 seems to have sent some communication to respondent ' No. 2 questioning its jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant. It also requested for supply of some documents. Respondent No. 2sentthe required documents, but even then respo...
Tulase Mahankali Vs. Andhra University and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD801; 2007(1)ALT264
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Appointment of the 3rd respondent as a Lecturer, in the Department of Human Genetics of the Andhra University, is questioned in this writ petition, as arbitrary and illegal and a consequential direction is sought to respondents 1 and 2 herein to appoint the petitioner in the said post.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that, vide Advertisement No. 18.1/92 dated 17.10.1992, applications were invited for several posts including that of a Lecturer in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology. The qualifications prescribed therein, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, is as under:a. Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University.b. Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the Eligibility Test for Lecturers conducted by U.G.C./C.S.I.R. or similar test accredited by the U.G.C. ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Narasimha Murthy Raju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC403; [2006(110)FLR447]
L. Narsimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is preferred under Section 50 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act').2. The 1st respondent was employed as a driver on a tractor bearing No. AP 31 T-6926, by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed W.C. No. 31 of 2005, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Authority'), the authority designated under the Act. He pleaded that on 1st April, 2005 he took the tractor and trailer to a workshop, on the instructions of 2nd respondent, and while detaching the trailer from the tractor, his fingers of the right hand were crushed, and later on, they were amputated. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1, 73,163.00. He placed reliance upon the certificate issued by the doctor, who treated him, wherein the disability was certified at 25%. The appellant herein was impleaded as one of the parties, being the insurer of the tractor and trailer.3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, almost admitti...
New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. B. Gopala and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC179; 2007ACJ2502; 2006(4)ALD686
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The only question that is urged by the appellant herein is that the policy and cover note for the vehicle bearing No.TN-22-3147 taken out on 15-5-1998 at 4.15 p.m. does not cover the liability arose out of an accident which took place at 12.30 noon on that day.2. The facts that gave rise to the filing of this appeal are not in dispute. The second respondent filed O.P. No. 251 of 2000 before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-in Additional District Judge, Anantapur alleging that he is a carpenter by profession and that on 15-5-1998 when he was proceeding on a motorcycle, a tractor bearing No.A.P. 02-V-2612 belonging to the first respondent, and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner, and hit him. He is said to have sustained serious injuries and claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, towards compensation.3. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit pleading that there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »