Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Harijana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC825; 2007ACJ267; 2006(4)ALD443; 2006(4)ALT241
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is filed by the 2nd respondent in O.P. No. 675 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kurnool, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 19-4-2005.2. The 1st respondent filed the O.P., claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He pleaded that he is a worker at Autonagar in Kurnool, and on 19-2-2003, when he was crossing the road, a scooter bearing No. AP-21 G-2593, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent, came from Kurnool town, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit him. It is stated that he fell on the left side of the road, and in the meanwhile, a lorry bearing No. AP-11T-1781, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, came at a high speed from Bellary Chowrasta side, and hit the scooter. The scooter is said to have fallen on the legs of the 1st respondent, and thereby he sustained injuries. The claim was resisted by the appellant, as well as respondent No. 4, who are the...
Bollareddy Brahmananda Reddy and anr. Vs. Bollareddy Seethayamma @ See ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD479; 2006(6)ALT207
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A. is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 151 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzivid, Krishna District.2. The appellants are the sons of the respondent herein. The respondent filed the suit, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, in respect of the suit schedule property. According to her, the suit land was originally owned by her father, and he gifted the same to her, through a gift deed dated 3-12-1957. It was her case that ever since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property, and that during the life time of her husband, he was looking after it. She contended that after the death of her husband in the recent past, the appellants have taken over the possession of the property and denied her any benefit of it.3. The respondent filed I.A. No. 1993 of 2004, under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C., for appointment of a Receiver. The application was resisted by the appellants herein. Through order dated 12-4...
K. Rajam Raju and ors. Vs. Smt. P. Rangamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD61; 2006(3)ALT505
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. The defendants are the petitioners herein, and the revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No. 1217 of 2001 in O.S. No. 430 of 2001, dated 16-4-2003 under which an application filed by the defendants to dismiss the suit as not maintainable was rejected.2. It is stated that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of cancellation of a compromise decree that was passed in an earlier suit between the parties i.e., O.S. No. 452 of 1991, on the ground of misrepresentation, fraud and coercion. It is stated that the said suit was filed for permanent injunction where during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs therein have agreed to receive certain amounts from the defendants and a compromise was effected as per which the plaintiffs have given up their rights over the suit schedule property. Alleging that fraud, misrepresentation and coercion have been played in obtaining ...
Alankar Foods and anr. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR197]; (2006)IILLJ781AP
G. Yethirajulu, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 210 of 2004 on the file of the III Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, challenging that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for the offences under Sections 84 and 85 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act').2. The complaint was filed against the petitioners under Section 85(a) and (e) of the Act. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No. 4074 of 2005 contending that in view of G.O.Ms. No. 99 Law (L.A. & J Courts.C) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, therefore, it has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the contents of G.O. Ms. No. 99 dated June 8, 2001 wherein the Government of Andhra Pradesh conferred the powers on the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hy...
F.A. and C.A.O./W.S.T./S.C., South Central Railway and ors. Vs. Chem E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR466(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the court below, dismissing the IA No. 371 of 2004 in OS No. 360 of 2003, filed under Section 151 CPC, on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of money of Rs. 1,66,360.3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there is an arbitration clause available in the agreement, which is called 'Indian Railway Service (IRS) Conditions of Contract'. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff addressed a letter to the department indicating that he was ready to proceed with the arbitration proceedings to settle the matter. In fact, this letter prompted the petitioners-defendants to file the interim application, IA No. 371 of 2004, which has been rejected by an order dated 23.01.2006. Hence, the present civil revision petition.4. In this revision, it is to...
Ghulam MohiuddIn @ Samad and ors. Vs. Akthar Sultana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD666; 2006(3)ALT620
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. It is stated by the Counsel representing the revision petitioners that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the learned Counsel had served notice on the Counsel representing the parties before the trial Court. The proof of service is also filed.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the application praying for amendment of the written statement by introducing para 7(a) was dismissed only on the ground of delay. The learned Counsel would submit that the suit was filed for partition and due to oversight, certain facts were not incorporated in the written statement. The learned Counsel would maintain that the proposed amendment is more clarificatory in nature, but the learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage, and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on M.P. Rajasekharan Nair v. Raju 2003 (TLS) 1103919 2003-Tiker-0-59.3. Heard the ...
Yerragorla Narayana Vs. Gavvala Nallesu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP305; 2006(4)ALD164; 2006(4)ALT263
D. Appa Rao, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 344 of 1984 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Anantapur, filed this appeal against the reversal judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.No. 49 of 1994 allowing the appeal when the trial Court dismissed the said suit.2. The plaintiffs, the respondents herein, filed suit for recovery of Rs. 17,000/-towards damages for obtaining an order of interim injunction in I.A.No. 911 of 1978 in O.S. No. 658 of 1978 on the file of the learned Prl. District Munsif, Anantapur, on improper grounds.3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant, the appellant herein, filed O.S.No. 658 of 1978 with totally false and untenable allegations claiming right over the properties wherein there was standing crop raised by them, and filed. I.A.No. 911 of 1978 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with the property and obtained orders of ex parte interim injunction on 4-11-1978. Unde...
Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mohd. Abdul Lateef Khan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD190; 2006(4)ALT647
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent in the E.P. No. 5 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1115 of 2001, aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Tribunal, which ordered issuance of warrant for delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property in accordance with the order passed in the main O.P.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the execution petition is not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by the Special Tribunal under Order XXI CPC; as the procedure for giving effect to the orders of the Special Tribunal are provided under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, the Special Tribunal shall communicate its order to the parties as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, and if an order is passed in favour of the petitioner, who sought for recovery of possession by eviction of the respondent, the Revenue Divisio...
Guru Govindu Vs. Devarapu Venkataramana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP371; 2006(4)ALD333
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 27 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchilli, for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note, date 24-8-2001. The petitioner filed his written statement and pleaded that his signature was forged upon the promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed. When the recording of evidence of the petitioner herein is in progress, he filed LA. No. 67 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the promissory note for the opinion of an expert in relation to the signature on it. Through order, dated 28-4-2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view taken by the trial Court that the application was filed at a belated stage cannot be countenanced. He farther contends that mere fac...
Guda Sanjeeva Reddy Vs. Kodathala Sujatamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD365; 2006(4)ALT636
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed O.S. No. 198 of 1991, for declaration of her title to and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the revision petitioner, describing the plaint schedule property as situate in Sangam Village of Sangam Mandal, though actually the plaint schedule property is situated in Buchireddypalem Village of Buchireddypalem Mandal. The contention of the respondent is that her Counsel in the trial Court, when the plaint was returned for compliance with certain objections by the Office, had made the necessary corrections in the plaint schedule by correcting the name of the Village and Mandal as Buchireddypalem by rounding of the words Sangam before Village and Mandal. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 54 of 1994 against the respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the very same property. Both the suits were clubbed and tried together and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the suit for spec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »