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.
Deepika Constructions, Engineers and Civil Contractors and anr. Vs. Ga ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD831; 2006(3)ALT308
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (q) is directed against an order dated 17-11-2004 passed in I.A.No. 181 of 2004 in O.S.No. 12 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur.2. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 12 of 2004. 1st Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,85,933/- with interest and costs from the defendants basing on a promissory note dated 9-4-2001 for Rs. 6,50,000/-. In the said suit the plaintiff moved I.A.No. 181 of 2004 under Order 38 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking attachment before judgment of amounts lying with the Executive Engineer AMRB Projects, Gandhamarigudem, Nalgonda, payable to defendants 1 and 2 on account of remodelling of Udaya Samudram Tank, Ponnugal, pending disposal of the suit.3. The material averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 181 of 2004 sworn to by Garikapati Radha Krishnaian-Plaintiff read tha...
G. Krimana Murthy Vs. Hemalatha Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP398; 2006(4)ALD42; 2006(3)ALT416
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Despite service of notice, in this Civil Revision Petition, as substitute service, by publishing the notice in 'Eenadi', Telugu Daily Newspaper, Warangal District Edition, under the date-line 3-7-2005, none appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and there is no representation on his behalf.2. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are not necessary parties as per the cause-title in the Civil Revision Petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.4. The question that we are called upon to answer in this Civil Revision Petition, as referred by a learned single Judge of this Court, is- 'whether an affidavit can be signed by any person, including the Advocate, other than the party to the proceedings'?5. In this context, it is to be seen that the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, which were formulated by this Court with the approval of the Governorof Andhra Pradesh, are relevant. Among those Rules, Rules 59, 54 and 48 are relevant in this regard.6. We may usefully no...
S. Nagender Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD210; 2006(4)ARBLR75(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The profession of law is called a noble profession. It does not remain noble merely by calling it as such unless there is a continued, corresponding and expected performance of this noble profession observed the Apex Court in Satish Sharma v. Bar Council of A.P. 2001(2) SCC 365. In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor 2001(1) SCC 118, the learned Judges held that the lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of Constitutional Government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. While dealing with the locus standi of lawyers in maintaining the Public Interest Litigation in relation to the matters concerned with the independence of judiciary in S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. : [1982]2SCR365 , it was held that there can be no doubt that the practising lawyers have a vital interest in the independence of the judiciary and if any unconstitutional or illegal action is taken by the State or any public authority which has th...
Ch. Sankara Reddy Vs. Andhra Bank and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP319; 2006(4)ALD350
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J. 1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 5-4-2005, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, allowing the petition in E.P.No. 115 of 2003 in O.S. No. 94 of 1998, filed by respondent No. 1-Andhra Bank, for arrest of the petitioner and another.2. Respondent No. 2 availed loan from respondent No. 1 by mortgaging title deeds of his property. The petitioner stood as guarantor to the said loan. As respondent No. 2 did not pay the amount, respondent No. l filed suit in O.S. No. 94 of 1998 for recovery of the loan amount from the borrower and the guarantor, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, decreed the same. When respondent No. 2 and the petitioner failed to pay the decretal amount, respondent No. 1 filed the present application, which on contest by respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, was allowed by the Court below by reason of the order impugned in this C.R.P.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for res...
Dr. M. Reghava Rao and anr. Vs. Oruganti Buchireddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)840; 2006CriLJ3087
ORDERP. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1727 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, Adilabad District.2. The facts are as follows : On 15-3-2003 at 9-30 a.m. the deceased, Linga Reddy met with an accident, as the car belonging to an Advocate dashed him. He was taken in the same car to the private hospital of the present first petitioner, where the second petitioner, who is an Anesthetist, along with the first petitioner treated him. The deceased died around 2-30 p.m. According to the complainant, the first respondent, the deceased died on account of the negligence of the doctors. He gave a complaint to the police on the same day. After investigation the police submitted final report dated 30-10-2003, to which the first respondent filed protest petition. After recording the sworn statement of the first respondent on 15-12-2004, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case. The order of...
Satyavathi Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC471
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. L.J. Veera Reddy, Counsel for 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent.2. Mr. P. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/A-2 would maintain that the offences under Sections 494 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'IPC') are non-cognizable offences. The learned Counsel also would contend that as per Section 198(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even as per the complaint and the charge-sheet, the petitioner has been serving A-1 as a cook and maid servant only and, hence, the allegation and charge under Section 494, IPC are not attracted.3. The learned Public Prosecutor had tak...
Sukhdev Soni (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sarda
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP316; 2006(4)ALD141; 2006(3)ALT616
D. Appa Rao, J.1. This is an appeal, by the Judgment Debtor, against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, in E.A.No. 37 of 2002 in E.P.No. 14 of 1991 in O.S.No. 589 of 1997, dated 04-04-2003, wherein, the learned Senior Civil Judge reversed the order of dismissal and allowed the execution approving the draft sale deed.2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 589 of 1977 against R-1 (sic. first appellant) one Sukhdev Soni, since died, for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 16-08-1974, marked as Ex.A-1 in the suit. The suit was decreed in part, against which, an appeal was preferred by the defendants, and Cross-Objections were filed by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the High Court, in C.C.C.A.No. 1110 of 1981 and Cross-Objections, decreed the suit for the entire suit property, bearing Door No. 7-4-55 and 7-4-68 and also for delivery of possession.3. Pursuant to the decree, the Decree Holder filed E.P.No. 14 of 1991 for execution ...
M. Ramaswamy Vs. Golla Rangamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD785; 2006(3)ALT798
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 81 of 2004, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, is the petitioner. He filed the suit against the respondent herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and that the respondent herein started interfering with his possession, without any basis. He also filed I.A. No. 225 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction. After issuing notice to the respondent herein, the trial Court allowed I. A., through order, dated 09-11 -2004. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.9 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The lower appellate Court allowed the C.M.A. on 15-07-2005. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from filing the title deed, marked as Ex.P-1, the petitioner had ...
Doddapaneni Chennakesava Rao Vs. Nannapaneni Narendra and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD263; 2006(4)ALT683
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed a suit against the respondents inter alia for a declaration and consequential Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of Rs. 3,37,600/- paid by him under an agreement with the respondents, and filed petition seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaint schedule property, which was allowed by the trial Court. At the time of trial, if the suit, when the revision petitioner sought to ark the said agreement dated 10-10-2002, as an exhibit Counsel for the respondents objected to its marking on the ground that it is not properly stamped, and that objection was upheld by the order under revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the agreement dated 10-10-2002 sought to be marked in the suit was already marked as an exhibi...
Chandabolu Bhaskara Rao Vs. Betha Saidi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD572; 2006(4)ALT245; 2007(I)ARBLR229(AP); I(2007)BC229
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the revision petitioner in his favour, revision petitioner filed petitions to receive the xerox copy of the suit promissory note and to permit him to lead evidence in respect of the xerox copy of the suit promissory note filed by him. The learned Judge while allowing the petition to receive the document dismissed the petition seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the suit promissory note. Hence this revision is filed.2. The case of the revision petitioner is that as no attestors were present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note, and since the suit promissory note filed into Court by the respondent-plaintiff contains the attestation of two attestors, it is clear that the suit promissory note is materially altered and so, in order to establish that the suit promissory note is materially altered by obtaining the signatures ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »