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.
Kurra Butchamma and anr. Vs. Government of A.P., Social Welfare Dept. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD59; 2006(3)ALT591
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions are in relation to an extent of Ac.2.03 cents of land in survey No. 107/E of Pokalagudem village, Chandragonda mandal of Kharr(sic)nam district.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in W.P.No. 20481 of 1996.3. The petitioner purchased the said land from the father of 5th respondent in the year 1969 under an agreement of sale. On a complaint made by the father of the 5th respondent, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), the 3rd respondent herein, initiated the proceedings under A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short 'Regulation'). It was taken up as case No. 1038/KGM/79 against the petitioner. It was alleged that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is in violation of the said Regulation. Through order dated 10-3-1986, the 3rd respondent directed the eviction of the petitioner.4.The petitioner f...
Mullah Ahmed Vs. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD310; 2006(3)ALT668
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27-6-2003, in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with a cut of 10% in his basic pension, and the consequential memo dated 27-6-2003 issued by the 1st respondent directing him to handover complete charge of his post, is impugned in this writ petition, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent-University as a Supervisor in August 1968, which post was later re-designated as an Assistant Engineer. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in 1972 which post was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer. He was subsequently promoted as an Executive Engineer in March 1998. The petitioner was issued memo dated 26-11 -2002 informing him that he would be retiring from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30-6-2003. Contending that he was entitled to continue in service till he att...
Supriya Cold Storage Vs. K. Sambasiva Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD659
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel.2. Aggrieved by the order made in I.A. No. 1/2006 in O.S.No. 21/2003 on the file of Ill-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff. The relief prayed for in the said I.A., filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 5 read with Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is as hereunder :For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue summons to Manager ING Vysya Bank, Hanamkonda Branch directing him to produce vouchers under to which loan amount of the defendants vide loan A/c No. 26/PC and another is repaid, by reopening the evidence of plaintiff.It is needless to say that 3 reliefs had been prayed for in the said, same application. Rule 55 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 dealing with Separate Application for each distinct prayer reads as hereunder :There shall be separate appli...
B. Basheer Khan Vs. Syed Shareef and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD651; 2006(3)ALT261
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 104 of 2004, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the 2nd respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.No. 302 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. The trial court granted an order of status quo on 24-3-2004.2. The 2nd respondent is said to have executed a GPA, as well as a sale deed, in favour of the petitioner herein on 3-9-2004. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has since left for abroad.3. Petitioner filed I.A.No. 1226 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead him as defendant No. 2, in the suit. The trial court dismissed the application, through its order dated 15-12-2004. Hence, the C.R.P.4. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was entitled to be added as a party to the suit, since he has acquired interest in the suit schedule property. He contends t...
Mrkr-mbgec, Rep. by C. Manohar Reddy and ors. Vs. Chief Administrative ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT274
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. These petitions have been placed before the Division Bench in view of order dated 3-3-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, who felt that the ratio of the decision dated 23-3-2005 rendered by another Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21401 of 2004 and batch, insofar as it relates to interpretation of Clause 18.2 of the agreement entered into between the contractors and the Administration of South Central Railway requires reconsideration.The facts:2. In pursuance of Tender Notice No. 59/ CAO/C/SC/2003, dated 4-8-2003 and Corrigendum No. 1, dated 29-8-2003 issued by the Railway Administration, M/s. MRKR-MBGEC (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3520 of 2006) submitted tender for re-building of bridge No. 750 across river Pennar on permanent diversion as 1 x 39.60 M + 11 x 40.20 M + 1 x 39.60 M (Clear) spans, PSC box section girders (existing 13 x 39.60 M GB) with well foundation at Km. 375/10 = 376/2 including earth work on approaches from Km.375/8-Km.376/2 and const...
N. Sunaja Vs. Katragadda Suresh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT406
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1.This revision is preferred against the order allowing a petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 6-6-2000 in O.P.No.56 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad. Respondent filed the aforesaid I.A.No. 439 of 2002 for setting aside the exparte order passed in O.P.No. 56 of 2000 which was allowed by cryptic order reading-Publication filed. Respondent called absent, set exparte, petition allowed.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner is residing in U.S.A., her mother who was present in the trial Court on the date of hearing had in fact filed the counter affidavit sworn to by the revision petitioner, but the trial Court even without considering the counter affidavit and even without affording an opportunity of making a representation to the mother of the revision petitioner, set the revision petitioner exparte, as she was called absent and allowed the petition.3. It is well known tha...
Tanguturi Seetharamaiah Vs. Pulipati Padmavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD13; 2006(3)ALT769
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar representing Sri A. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for revision petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for respondent.2. Respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.C.No. 159/97 on the file of Rent Controller, Vijayawada (here-in-after she will be referred to as 'landlady' for the purpose of convenience). The revision petitioner herein -tenant is the respondent in R.C.C. No. 159/97. The learned Rent Controller negatived the relief both on the grounds of wilful default and additional accommodation on appreciation of the evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of P. W. 1 - the husband of the landlady and R.W.1 the tenant and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3. The landlady aggrieved by the same had carried the matter by way of appeal R.C.C.M.A.No. 57/99 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Prinicpal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawadaa and the Appellate Authority recorded certain findings and ...
Gokara Konda Sita Vs. Cheedella Ramakrishna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT593
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'tenant', and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'landlord'.2. The revision petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, by the tenant aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded in relation to the bonafi depersonal requirement of the landlord in RCC No. 169 of 1999 and RC CMA No. 52 of 2000 on the file of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority respectively. It is not in serious controvery that the ground of willful default had been negatived by the learned Rent Controllerand the same was not questioned and the tenant alone appears to have carried the matter by way of appeal as aforesaid.3. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel...
Ameena Bee and ors. Vs. Khaleelul Rehman @ Irfan Ahmed
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD642
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Shir Trilok Bahadur Sahagal, the Counsel representing the appellants and Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali, the Counsel representing the respondents.2. This appeal, as against OS No. 322 of 1985, on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, was originally filed and numbered as AS No. 221 of 1993, on the file of 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but in view of the fact that a common judgment was delivered in both OS No. 745 of 1982 and OS No. 322 of 1985 and in view of the fact that as against the judgment and decree made in OS No. 745 of 1982, an appeal -CCCA No. 60 of 1994 - was preferred to this Court, the aforesaid appeal was transferred to be heard along with this appeal. It is stated that the withdrawal of AS No. 221 of 1993 is by virtue of an order dated 11-10-1995 passed in Transfer CMP No. 226 of 1994, CCCA MP No. 527 of 2005 was filed by Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali praying for dismissa...
Thadisina Chinna Babu Rao Vs. Thadisina Saralakumari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD801; 2006(5)ALT275
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent, who is the daughter of the revision petitioner, filed O.S. No. 47 of 2004 under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short - 'the Act') before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking maintenance etc., from the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed a petition in LA. No. 823 of 2004 to dismiss the suit or return the plaint for presentation before proper Court as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding filed by a daughter against her father for maintenance, basing on the observations in P. Sreehari v. P. Sukunda : 2001(2)ALD72 , which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence, this revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that since a reading of the Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act and the sequence in which clauses (a) to (g) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act are arranged, coupled with the observation made in Para 5 of P. Srih...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »