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.
Laveti Ramayamma Vs. Bondala Nukaraju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD616
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned Counsel representing petitioner and Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel representing respondent.2. The landlady-Laveti Ramayammu aggrieved by the reversing order made in R.C.A.No. 6 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge-Appellate Authority, Rajahmundry, had preferred the present civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).3. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as landlady and tenant for the purpose of convenience.4. The landlady filed R.C.C. No. 55 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry, praying for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rents from April, 1988 and also on the ground of denial of title.5. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and ma...
K. Afsarunnisa Begum (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. K. Anasuya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD495; 2006(3)ALT740
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The legal representatives of the original tenant-the respondents in RC. No. 64/2002 on the file of Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad and the respondents in R.A. No. 164/2003 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad - Appellate Authority had preferred the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (here-in-after, in short, referred to as 'Act ' for the purpose of convenience). The petitioners (here-in-after referred to as 'tenants') aggrieved by the reversing order made in R. A. No. 164/2003 on the file of Appellate Authority aforesaid had preferred the present C.R.P. The respondent is the appellant in R.A. No. 164/2003 and the respondent in the present C.R.P. (here-in- after referred to as landlady'). The landlady filed R.C. No. 64/2002 on the file of Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad praying for the relief of eviction on the ground of wilful default. Before...
K. Sarangapani Vs. Annamaneni Kishan Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT8
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel on record.2. Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that though the application was filed under Section 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (here-in-after, in short, referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying the Court to dismiss the suit, virtually the application is one filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. The learned Counsel would maintain that the bar of res judicata is specifically raised and in view of the fact that the plaint in the prior suit O.S. No. 1769/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal was marked as Ex. A-1, the affidavit of the plaintiff therein as Ex.A-2, the judgment as Ex.A-4 and the decree as Ex.A-5 and also the notice issued as Ex.A-3, this would clearly establish that the prior suit also was in relation to the same subject matter and the same question was put into issue. The Counsel also would maintain t...
Mediworld Infotech Vs. C.E.i. Consultancy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC99; 2006CriLJ2566
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 17-9-2002 in C.C. No. 313/1999. The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'Act') against respondents 1 and 2. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence and after hearing both parties held that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence the accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Being aggrieved by thejudgment of the lower Court the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging its validity and legality.2. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the cause of action to file the complaint arose on 12-11-1999, limitation for filing complaint starts on 13-11-1999 and the limitation to file the complaint is on 12-12-1999. Since 12-12-1999 happens to be a Sunday, a publ...
Midwest India Industries Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas597(AP); [2007]79SCL280(AP)
K.C. Bhanu, J.1. This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S. T. C. Nos. 1 of 2001 to 6 of 2001, 94 of 2001, 95 of 2001, C. C. No. 243 of 2001 to 254 of 2001, and C. C. No. 279 of 2001 to 287 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge, Economic Offences Court, Hyderabad.2. None appears for the petitioner. Perused the grounds of criminal petition.3. The grounds urged are that the offences are not continuous offences and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, that the company has its registered office at Nariman Point, Mumbai, and therefore, the court of Economic Offences at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction, that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody for the last 28 months due to criminal prosecution, that the High Court had already seized company property and bank accounts and that the petitioner is sufficiently old and suffered mentally and physically and hence he prays to quash the proceedings.4. The learned standing c...
Bandaru Ramu Vs. Secretary to Government, Govt. of A.P. Housing Dept. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD206; 2006(3)ALT314
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a member of the A.C.C. Employees and Industrial Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') which was registered in the year 1975 under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). It is stated that the 5 th respondent was the last elected President of the Managing Committee of the society, the term of which expired on 9-10-2001. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent -Divisional Co-operative Officer, Vijayawada by proceedings dated 8-10-2001 appointed persons-in-charge under Section 32(7)(a) of the Act for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent filed a Revision Petition before the Government of A.P. Pending the said Revision, by order dated 23-11-2001 the 1st respondent -Government of A.P. directed the 3rd respondent to appoint erstwhile committee headed by the 5th respondent and others as persons-in-charge committee for a pe...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. E. Laxma Reddy (Died) Per Lrs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC702; 2007ACJ638; 2006(3)ALD353; 2006(3)ALT414
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This CMA is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P. No. 276 of 1996.2. Initially, the O.P. was filed by the deceased-1st respondent. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, alleging that on 20-1-1996, he was travelling as the owner of the goods, in the lorry bearing No. ATK-7797, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, and at about 12 noon, the lorry met with an accident at Indalwani, on N.H. No. 7, and he sustained injuries and fractures on the collar bone, head, and other parts of body. During the pendency of the O.P., the 1st respondent died and his wife and son were brought on record, as legal representatives (respondents 2 and 3). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The same is challenged in this C.M.A.3. Sri Jagannath, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicles, and as such, no compensat...
Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta Vs. K. Sheshirekha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD362
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, dated 22-11-2004.2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs in respect of plot No. 62, as described in the schedule. The contention of the plaintiff is that he purchased plot No. 62 by a registered sale deed, dated 14-8-1991 from his vendors in an approved lay out and that the defendant purchased plot No. 63 on 15-10-1990 through a registered sale deed, that the defendant encroached a portion of plot No. 62. Hence, he filed a suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs.3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 1320 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection, measurement of Plot No. 62 belonging to the plaintiff, identification of plot No. 63 belonging to the respondent with the help of a surveyor by measuring both the...
Delight Electrical Works and ors. Vs. New Deccan Hall and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD436
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful landlords in both the Courts below filed the present C.R.P., under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'the Act', for the purpose of convenience.2. The landlords filed R.C.C.No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller for eviction on the following grounds:1. Wilful default in payment of rent for the period of February 1997 to April 1997.2. Wilful default in payment of municipal taxes.3. Bona fide personal requirement of the landlords since the partnership firm does not own any other non-residential premises in the twin cities.The learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad after framing points for consideration at para-8, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, R.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A1 to A53, Ex.B.1 to B.45 and Exs.X1 to X.21 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondents herein, the tenant had not committed any wilful defaul...
Masini Shekar Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD89
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 66 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the respondents herein. While respondents 1 to 3 are Revenue Authorities, respondents 4 to 11 are private individuals. They also filed I.A.No. 229 of 2005 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. The trial Court granted an order of status quo on 8-6-2005. Subsequently they filed I.A.No. 1081 of 2005 with a prayer to protect their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in Sy.No. 204 of Velugupally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. The LA. was dismissed on 17-11-2005, directing that the suit schedule property be put to auction and the proceeds thereof be deposited in the Court. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients placed voluminous documentary evidence before the trial Court to prove the possession over the suit schedule property and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »