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.
Kavuru Ramakrishna S/O Lakshmanna and Two ors. Vs. Kurella Nagamani W/ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD510
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 27 of 1992 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, feel aggrieved by the order, dated 06.02.2006, passed in I.A. No. 610 of 2003.2. The petitioners filed the suit, against respondents 8 to 12 herein, for the relief of partition and separate possession. A preliminary decree was passed on 30.03.1999. At that stage, One Mr. Nageswara Rao filed I.A. No. 313 of 2001 to get himself impleaded in the suit, stating that he purchased one of the items of suit schedule property from respondent No. 12 herein (Defendant No. 5). While this I.A. was pending, he died on 07.06.2003, and no steps were taken by his legal representatives, to come on record.3. Respondents 1 to 7 herein, who are said to be the legal representatives of late Nageswara Rao, filed I.A. No. 610 of 2003 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to get themselves impleaded in I.A. No. 681 of 1999, which was filed for final decree. The application...
Ramgopal Bajaj (Died) by Lrs. and anr. Vs. Secretary Municipal Adminis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD392; 2006(5)ALT772
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the permit No. 475/94 in file No. 35/IP6/94 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the sixth respondent permitting respondents 4 to 6 to construct a multi-storied building complex in premises No. 4-1-1225, King Kothi Road.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are briefly stated thus: Late A.B.H. Khursheed who is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 4-1-1225 had constructed two separate buildings, one on the south and another on the north facing the main CC road leaving a passage of about 10 feet in-between the two buildings. The second petitioner purchased the southern side of the building, namely, D. No. 4-1-1225/2 in the year 1975 and since then she has been in possession of the said property. Late Khursheed executed a will in favour of his unmarried sister Ms. Khursheed Banu and as per the wi...
Kanamarlapudi Venkataratnamma and Two ors. Vs. Chunduru Padmavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD89; 2006(6)ALT138
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady. The landlady filed R.C.C. No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nellore for eviction of the tenant-Ranganayakulu, the sole respondent therein. During the pendency of the said case he died and his wife and two sons were brought on record as his legal representatives as respondents 2 to 4 who are the petitioners herein. The said eviction petition was filed under Section 10(2) (1) and 10(3) (a) (1) (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ( for brevity, 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule property bearing D. No. 18/210 situated in Sikharamvari Street, Nellore Town on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and that the premises is bonafidely required for the personal occupation. The rent payable as on the date of filing the eviction petition was Rs. 250/- per month. The tenancy is oral and the rents are payable ...
State Election Commission, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Malladi Rajendra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALT279
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21 -6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. MP. No. 15303 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 12308 of 2006 whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition i.e. Election-cum-Returning Officer, East Godavari District and District Collector, East Godavari District, have been directed to accept the nomination paper of the writ petitioner, Malladi Rajendera Prasad (respondent No. 1 herein) for contesting election to Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency of Tallarevu.2. In the writ petition filed by him, respondent No. 1 averred that as per the schedule of election notified by the State Election Commission (appellant herein), the last date for filing nomination papers was 17-6-2006 and 18-6-2006 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers. He filed nomination on 17-6-2006. The same was rejected by the Election-cum-Returning Officer, Kakinadaon the ground that his name was not reflected in the electoral rolls of Talla...
Sri Sai Traders, Rep. by Its Proprietor and ors. Vs. Assistant Supply ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP343; 2006(4)ALD736; 2006(4)ALT758
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Order.2. In both these cases, the rice held by the petitioners was seized by conducting panchanamas on the allegation that the said rice is meant for Public Distribution System (PDS) and it was black marketed; therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the rice and initiating the proceedings Under Section 6A of the Act as arbitrary and illegal.3. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 4 in W.P.No. 4797 of 2006 denying the allegations made by the petitioners and supporting the impugned action of the respondents.4. Heard both sides.5. Admittedly, the rice was taken out of the Essential Commodities Act by way of an Order passed by the Ministry of Con...
G. Anand Kumar Reddy and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD657; 2006(4)ALT688
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel.2. The Writ Petition is filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting for No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Joint Collector, Hyderabad and not receiving the building application of the petitioners in respect of premises bearing No. 8-3-168/P/1, Erragadda, opposite ESI Hospital, Hyderabad and not granting building permission as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and Building Bye-Laws, 1981 and consequently direct the respondents to receive the building application of the petitioners and grant building permissions without insisting No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders.3. It is stated that the petitioners' vendor purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 2-9-1974 and their vendor's vendor purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated ...
V. Devi Ravindra Prasad Vs. V. Rukmini Bayamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD112
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-8-2005 in LA. No. 405 of 2005 in O.S.No. 127 of 1999 on the file of the Court of VIl-Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule properties. The defendants/respondents herein filed a written statement contesting the suit claim and also making a counter-claim for partition of the suit schedule properties among the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. After the issues were settled and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was let in, the 1st defendant examined herself as D.W.I. While the matter was coming up for further evidence on behalf of the defendants, the defendants filed I.A. No. 405 of 2005 under Order 18 Rule 3A of CPC seeking permission to examine the husband of the 2nd defendant in the first instance without examining the 2nd defendant. The said application was allowed by the Cou...
Thati Ranga Rao Vs. L. Varalaxmi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC624; 2006(5)ALD289; [2006(111)FLR522]
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant challenges the order, dated 19-3-2001, passed by the Assistant Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (for short the Commissioner), Warangal, in W.C. No. 1 of 1993.2. The first respondent raised a claim before the Commissioner alleging that her husband L. Bhaskar Rao was employed with the appellant in a rice mill and that in an accident which took place on 9-1-1993 in the mill, he died on the spot. It was alleged that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,375/- per month and accordingly prayed for award of compensation under the provisions of the Act.3. The appellant denied his liability. He pleaded that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the rice mill and that he took the same on lease with effect from 15-3-1993. According to him, when the accident has taken place, he was not the lessee and therefore, the question of his being held responsible does not arise. Through the order under appeal, the Commissione...
Yempalla Ramaiah Vs. Pallamparthi Krishna Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD367; 2007(4)ALT677
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents filed a suit seeking a decree of perpetual and mandatory injunctions against the revision petitioner and others, which was decreed in the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court, which became final. Respondents filed the E.P. to enforce the decree of mandatory injunction of removal of a wall passed in their favour and against the revision petitioner. Warrant was returned unexecuted by the bailiff on the ground that the wall which is to be removed as per the decree, was not found. Thereafter, respondents filed a petition under Section 152 C.P.C. in E.A. No. 9 of 2001 seeking amendment of the decree passed in their favour which was opposed on various grounds by the revision petitioner and others. Negativing their contention, the executing Court allowed the said E.A. by the order under revision. Hence, this revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the executing Court, which is bou...
M.A. Khader Khan Vs. Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD434
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 5315 of 1996 dated 12-3-1998, the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner died and consequently his legal representatives were brought on record by order in WPMP No. 24354 of 2002 dated 22-6-2006.2. The petitioner was initially employed in the armed forces on 6th October, 1936 and after rendering military service for sixteen years, he retired from service on 1-1-1952. He was subsequently engaged as a contingent night watchman at the Government Hospital, Sultanbazaar from 7-2-1967. His services were regularized as Class IV employee on 1-4-1987 and he continued in the said post till he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31-10-1989. Claiming to have his military services included, for the purpose grant of pension, the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order in O.A. No. 5315 of 1996 d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »