Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Gunda Venkata Lakshmi Kumari Sarita Vs. Gunda Balasubramanyam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD637
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner in both these revisions and Sri Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondents in both the C.R.Ps.2. The C.R.Ps. are filed by Gunda Venkata Lakshmi Kumari Sarita, the plaintiff in O.S. No, 103/99 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, aggrieved by the orders made in LA. Nos. 299/ 2005 and 1781/2005. The applications had been filed praying for the amendment of the plaint requesting to amend the valuation and also to add certain items said to have been deleted initially for want of production of the Valuation Certificate. It appears that the learned Judge made a common order disposing of several applications but however these two C.R.Ps. had been preferred as against the orders made in the I.As. referred to supra praying for amendment of the plaint.3. The facts appear to be not in serious dispute or controversy. This is a partition action filed by the daughter an...
Penmatsa Padma Vs. Indukuri Seetamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD832
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ramachandra Raju, the Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri L. Venugopal, representing Challa Dhananjaya, the Counsel for respondents.2. The revision petitioner had preferred the present revision petition aggrieved by the order made in LA. No. 438 of 2003 in O.S. No. 481 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.3. The petitioner filed the said application under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience, to summon the Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram, to produce the original Will dated 24.6.1992 Document No. 100 of 1992, executed by Penmatsa China Venkatruju, The said application was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter in detail. The learned Judge, in fact, virtually prima facie had decided the validity of the Will making certain observations and ultimately, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the...
M.V.R. Sastry and ors. Vs. Mohd. Zahed Ali and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3826
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1.This Criminal Petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 181 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, Adilabad District, to quash the proceedings against them for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C.2. The petitioners alleged to have published a news item in their daily newspaper 'Andhra Bhoomi' alleging that there was some information that two persons and their followers appropriated the amount collected from the contractors. The name of the complainant is not referred in the news item. The complainant claims that he is one of the accused in the crime, which was registered against the persons referred in the news item. As seen from the news item, there is no direct nexus between the news item and the complainant and no defamatory statement has been made against him.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 198 of Cr.P.C, the aggrieved person must file the complaint, but the complainant can...
Banoath Samla and anr. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Special Secretary ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT471
J. Chelameswar, J.1. The petitioners belong to a community called 'Lambada'. They purchased an extent of Ac. 4.16 gts. and 2.10 gts. respectively in a village called Kawal, Jannaram Mandal, Adilabad District sometime in the year 1985. On 16.11.1992, the 3rd respondent suo motu issued a notice purporting to be one under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1970 (sic. 1959) calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why they should not be evicted from the above described lands on the ground that the lands purchased by them are in contravention of the above mentioned Regulation. After the service of the notice, the respondents (sic. petitioners) filed their objections and personal hearing was granted, evidence was taken and an order dated 28.3.1995 came to be passed holding that the purchase by the petitioners of the above mentioned property is in contravention of the above referred Regulation and consequentially they are required to be evicted from the lands. Aggrieved by...
Jonnalagadda Shuhasini and ors. Vs. Ravela Arogyaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD831
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petition for condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the petition to set-aside the ex parte decree filed by defendants 4 to 6 was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.2. The case of the revision petitioners is that when first revision petitioner went to the Collector Office at Hyderabad for obtaining the terminal benefits of her husband, she was informed about the stay order passed in O.S. No. 151 of 2003 with regard to their payment and when she got enquiries made through her Counsel she came to know that an ex parte decree was passed against her in the suit filed by the respondent, after publishing notice in a Telugu news daily Praja Shakti for appearance of herself and her children and that she was advised to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay of 102 days.3. The case of the respondent is that as revision petitioners, who have knowledge about passing of the decree, have not explained the day...
S.L. Constructions and anr. Vs. Alapati Srinivasa Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC712
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners who are A-l and A-2 in C.C. No. 99 of 2004 to quash the proceedings on the file of the IV Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Guntur.2. The 1st petitioner is proprietary concern and 2nd petitioner is the proprietor of it. A complaint came to be filed by the 1st respondent before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur alleging that the 2nd petitioner as proprietor of the 1 st petitioner concerned issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable liability on 22.6.2003. On presentation of the said cheque, it came to be dishonoured and, thereafter, a statutory notice came to be issued on 17.12.2003. In-spite of the petitioners being in receipt of statutory notice failed to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question and thus the 1st respondent-complainant initiated proceedings by filing complaint under Sections 190 and 200, Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 13...
Pillarisetti Harinath Babu and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Trib ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD445; 2006(4)ALT287
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions claim to be the owners and possessors of Ac.1.31 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 228 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam district, which is notified as a scheduled area. The 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the 1st petitioner purchased the above said land in the year 1961 from the grandfather of respondent No. 4 by name Bandaru Tirumali. Having purchased the said land, the petitioners constructed two houses in a part of the land and raised mango garden in the rest of the land. It is also claimed that soon after purchase, the necessary mutations were effected in the revenue records and, title deed and pattedar pass book were also issued in favour of the 1st petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manuguru Mandal after due enquiry as to the title and possession.2. While so, on a complaint made by the father of the 4th respondent, by name Chennabbai, proceedings were initi...
Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Sanghi Spinners (India) Ltd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD749; [2007]74SCL95(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. By this company petition, the petitioner viz., M/s. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited, under Section 433(e) and (f) of Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), seeks an order of winding up against the respondent-Company, viz., Sanghi Spinners (India) Limited, which is indebted to the petitioner-Company in a sum of Rs. 1,75,05,867.11 ps, in addition to the interest of almost equal sum, in all the respondent company is due a sum of Rs. 3,51,86,792.89 ps, which the respondent-Company failed to pay the same, and further it has become commercially insolvent.2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Company, which was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. Similarly the respondent is also a Company, incorporated on 9-1-1992, within the Sate of Andhra Pradesh, with the authorised share capital of Rs. 60,00,00,000/- divided into 6,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each, and the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the respondent-Com...
Koripathi Sriranga Gopala Rao Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD822
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Laxminarqyana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Panchayat Raj.2. The petitioner - Koripathi Sriranga Gopala Rao filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action against the 3rd respondent to disqualify him from the post of Sarpanch of Pandithavilluru Grampanchayat, Podur Mandal, West Godavari District in view of the fact that he filed I.P.No. 24/2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Narsapur, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 19(2)(c) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate action against the third respondent in terms of Section 19 of the aforesaid Act forthwith in pursuance of applications dated 10-10-2005 and 21-12-2005 filed by the petitioner and pass such othe...
Chairman and Managing Director, Apcpdcl and ors. Vs. P.C. Dhoot and So ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD835
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these three civil revision petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.2. The petitioners herein-APCPDCL, are the defendants in (E) O.S. No. 3 of 2003; (E) O.S. No. 1 of 2003 and (E) O.S. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The respondents in these revision petitions are the plaintiffs in the respective suits.3. Having received summons in the suits, the defendants/revision petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaints on the grounds that the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, which is functioning as the Special Court under the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) (for short 'the Act'), had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suits. The said applications numbered as I.A.Nos. 1673; 876 and 1722 of 2004 in (E) O.S.No. 3 of 2003; (E) O.S. No. 1 of 2003 and (E) O...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »