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.
Maram Sujathamma and ors. Vs. State Election Commission, Rep. by Its C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD741; 2006(4)ALT748
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.W.P. No. 13050 of 2006:1. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the action of the Returning Officer and the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.T.C. in declaring that the petitioner has withdrawn the nomination filed on behalf of Indian National Congress as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in elections under Indian National Congress banner for the elections to the post of Member, M.P.T.C, Bandarlapalli-ll segment, scheduled to be held on 02-07-2006 or any other subsequent date and pass such other suitable orders.2. It is stated that the first respondent issued election notification for elections of the members of Zilla Parishad on 10-06-2006. It is also stated that the Returning Officer had issued notification, inviting nominations from the proposed contestants on 13-06-2006. It is further stated that the nominations were received during 13-06-2006 to 17-06-2006, the scru...
Madala Siva Kasirathna Prameela Rani W/O Koteswara Rao and Bandlamudi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD680
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs as against the order made in I.A. No. 161 of 2006 in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience). The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants and the first respondent-first defendant in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 filed a suit in O.S. No. 270 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet praying for the relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs. The stand taken by the revision petitioners is that in view of the fact that the suit filed by the first respondent-first defendant in O.S.No.270 of 2005 on the file of...
Maruthi College Engineering and Technology Represented by Its Chairman ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4407
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the accused in C.C. No. 278 of 2005 to quash the proceedings filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.2. The accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant demanded to repay the amount, he issued six cheques and when the complainant presented the said cheques, they were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a legal notice on 25.11.2002 to the accused attacking him to pay the amount covered under the cheques. On receipt of the said notice, the accused approached the complainant and represented that due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not deposit the amount into bank and asked apology and requested the complainant not to initiate any legal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act and promised to repay the sai...
Ms. N. Ahmedullah Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4420
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner-A-3 in C.C. No. 1647 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad to quash the proceeding therein so far as she is concerned.2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to filing of this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A-3 in C.C.1647 of 2004 are: Third respondent M/s. United Construction Company is a partnership concern. Petitioner herein and 4th respondent are wife and husband and they are partners in the said partnership concern. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 entered into a memorandum of understanding with second respondent-complainant on 08.12.2003 agreeing to pay Rs. 70,00,000/- to the second respondent-complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner and her husband (A-2) in pursuance of Clause (4) of the said memorandum of understanding paid a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- and issued four cheques as detai led below:1) Cheque No. 1...
Palika Bhaskara Rao and ors. Vs. Juttuga Savitri and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALT262
ORDERG. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada dated 21 -3-2006 in IA No. 448 of 2006 in A.S. No. 49 of 2006, whereby the first appellate Court directed not only the deposit of costs of the decree but also furnishing of third party security to a sum of Rs. 3,09,800/- being the value of suit property as mentioned in the plaint for the due performance of the decree as may be ultimately binding on the appellants pending the appeal.2. The appellants/defendants approached this Court by way of this revision contending that the direction to furnish security to the extent of the value of the suit property as specified in the plaint is onerous and beyond the scope of the decree.3. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners has brought it to the notice of this Court that the suit is only for declaration and permanent injunction in which the other side succeeded claiming to be in po...
Angara Venkata Suryanarayana Prasad Vs. Satya Chits and Finance a Firm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT14
ORDERD. Appa Rao, J.1. This is a revision preferred by 2nd defendant against the order, dated 28-10-2004, inI.A.S.R. No. 9198 of 2004 in O.S. No. 1577 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in rejecting an application filed to set aside an exparte decree.2. The 1sl respondent herein is the plaintiff. It has filed a suit for recovery of amounts due under a chit fund impleading the present revision-petitioner as 2nd defendant along with three more defendants. While the revision-petitioner did not choose to contest, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 contested the matter, filed written statement, let in evidence both oral as well as documentary.3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, after considering the evidence placed on record, passed a decree and judgment, dated 24-8-2004, against all the defendants.4. In the month of September, 2004 the revision - petitioner has come up with an application under Order 9, Rule13 of C.P.C. to set aside the decree on the ground that it...
Kilari Ayyanna Patrudu Vs. Govt. of A.P., Rep. Prl. Secretary, Revenue ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT480
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the State Government is required to record reasons for refusing to grant exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') is the question which arises for determination in these petitions filed by Kilari Ayyanna Patrudu, Kilari Venkata Chinnayya Patrudu and Kilari Satyanarayana Patrudu under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing Memos dated 28.9.1996 issued by Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue (U.C.I) Department.2. The petitioners are sons of Kilari Appalaswamy Patrudu (hereinafter referred to as the 'land owner') who owned 8782 sq. mtrs. of land comprised in Survey Number 5/3 of Gullalapalem Village, which falls in the urban agglomeration area of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. After coming into force of the Act, the land owner filed a declaration under Section 6(1) thereof. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter described as 'the Special Offi...
A. Chandraiah Vs. A. Chandramouli and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD130; I(2008)BC98
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Third respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against the revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of four promissory notes executed by A. Narasappa alleging that the revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, who are in possession of the estate of the said Narasappa, have to discharge the amount due to him from out of the estate of Narasappa in their hands. After contest by the revision petitioner, the said suit was decreed directing the defendants therein to pay the suit amount from out of the estate of Narasappa in their hands i.e., in the hands of revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. In execution of that decree, third respondent filed E.P. for attachment and sale of a house property in Kurnool City, in which revision petitioner filed a counter at the stage when sale proclamation was issued alleging that A. Nagappa, who is described as owner of the property brought to sale, is neither the judgment-debtor nor defendant in the...
Telugu Desam Party, Rep. by Its Polit Bureau Mamber Vs. State Election ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT655
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri Nuti Rama Mohana Rao takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. G.P. for Home takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The Telugu Desam political party, the main opposition party in the State of Andhra Pradesh had approached this Court for issuance of suitable directions. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the impending Local Body elections scheduled to be held on 28-6-2006 and 2-7-2006 after affording necessary protection to the petitioner party candidates and after satisfying themselves through the reports of the concerned and other higher officials about the atmosphere in the electoral place and ensure that the same are free from fear and terror and pass such other suitable orders.2. The interim reliefs prayed for in the W.P.M.Ps are as hereunder:W.P.M.P. 15941 of 2006 is filed praying ...
Parchuri Ratnakar Rao Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD132; 2006(6)ALT671
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. Whether the purchaser of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') can claim benefit of the policy contained in G.O. Ms. No. 733, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 31-10-1988 and seek exemption under Section 20 of the Act is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by the appellant against orders dated 7-7-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 14662 and 14675 of 2005 respectively whereby he refused to quash final statement issued by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Warangal (hereinafter described as 'Special Officer') under Section 9 and notifications issued under Section 10(3) and (6) of the Act in respect of land comprised in Survey No. 182/4 belonging to late Sri V. Lakshmaiah.2. The appellants claim to have purchased 3448.50 square yards of land comprised in Survey No. 182/4 situated at Shayampet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »