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.
Lakshmi Ganesh Films and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD374
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The anti-Semitic Nazi genocide at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, the partition carnage, the Somnath pillage, the Godhra massacre, inquisitions, crusades, purges, ethnic cleansing, untouchabiliry and slavery are but some of the shameful but recurring episodes in human history. Illustrations of man's inhumanity to others; of intolerance of the pervasive diversity of the human condition; dehumanizing examples of mankind's irrational and emotionally sterile response to aspects of others that are disagreeable; precedents of brutalizing dissent of colour, faith, dogma, race, ethnic origins, religious persuasions, descent, cultural practices or other insular indices of the human condition.2. We enjoy a shared membership of the human race and our future depends on tolerance of distinctions that mark the richness and diversity of the plural global community of man. Faith, race, religion, dogma or culture are not wholly homogeneous attributes. There are several cle...
Polasa Rajalaxmi Vs. M.A. Raheem
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD7
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant filed O.S. No. 878 of 1982 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Warangal, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the latter from interfering with the suit schedule property. The appellant pleaded that she is the owner and possessor of the house bearing No. 15/81/2 of Rangampet, Warangal, and that having purchased the same through Sale Deed dated 10-7-1963, she constructed a house soon thereafter. She also pleaded that she purchased the neighbouring piece of the land on the western side through Sale Deed, dated 3-4-1964.2. According to the appellant, there is a proposed road of 30 feet wide on the rear that he did not encroach into any property belonging to any one, much less, that of the appellant.4. Through its judgment, dated 3-11-1992, the trial Court decreed the suit. The respondent filed A.S. No. l of 1993 before the District Court, Warangal. The appeal was allowed on 17-3-1994. Hence, this second ap...
Arjuna Subramanya Reddy Vs. Arjuna China Thangavelu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP362; 2006(5)ALD169; 2006(5)ALT231
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff Magistrate, Nagari, is the appellant. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he purchased the suit schedule land under a sale deed, dated 20-2-1981 (Ex. A-1) for a consideration of Rs. 1,800/-, and thereafter he acquired the possession of the superstructure under an agreement of sale, dated 31-3-1981 (Ex. A-2) for a consideration of Rs. 1,450/-. According to him, five years before the sale of the property, his vendor, P.W. 2, had inducted the respondent (defendant) into permissive possession and when the latter was required to handover the vacant possession of the premises, he declined.2. The appellant got issued a notice, dated 5-4-1981 (Ex.A-4) calling upon the respondent to deliver the vacant possession. To this, the respondent issued a reply (Ex. A-6) stating inter alia that the suit schedule pr...
Gade Jogi Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD126
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Rules of natural justice are multifaceted and multi-demensional. Their application vary from case to case. No straightjacket formula has so far been evolved nor deserves to be evolved for invoking the rules of natural justice. One of the rules which has been recognised since time immemorial and frequently applied by the Courts for invalidation of judicial and quasi judicial orders and even administrative actions is the rule of audi alterant partem i.e., no man can be condemned unheard. Whenever a complaint is made by a person that he has been denied opportunity of hearing, the Court is required to consider the factual matrix of the case and then decide whether the action complained against is violative of the rule of hearing and whether violation of this facet of natural justice has resulted in prejudice.2. The question whether the rule of audi alterant partem is applicable to purely administrative actions and decisions of the public authorities which affect t...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gorla Bondamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC235; 2007ACJ797; 2006(5)ALD158
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The Tribunal dismissed the petition of the revision-petitioner/insurer filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), on the ground that the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident had filed his counter and cross-examined P.Ws.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since the owner did not effectively cross-examine the witnesses and has not taken the steps, which he ought to have taken, for effectively defending the claim, revision petitioner is entitled to contest the O.P. on all the grounds open to the owner. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who are claimants in the O.P., is that since the affidavit filed in support of the insurance company was signed by its officer long prior to the filing of the counter and since the owner is contesting the O.P. the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant permission to the revision petitioner to contest the O.P. on all the grounds open...
Kasimireddi Narasimha Reddy S/O Venkata Reddy Vs. Kasimireddi Sarojamm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD561
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent for herself and on behalf of her minor daughters.2. The trial Court, while dismissing the claim of plaintiffs 2 and 3 i.e. respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that they even after becoming majors, did not file a petition opting to proceed with the suit, observing that inasmuch as they are females under the care and custody of 1st respondent even after attaining majority, passed a preliminary decree allotting 1/6th share in item Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and 1/3rd share in item No. 6 of the plaint schedule to 1st plaintiff. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 117 of 2004 seeking review of the said Judgment and Decree, on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record because the Court erroneously allotted a share to the quandam minor plaintiffs also while dismissing their suit in the decree passed in favour of 1st plaintiff, which was dismissed ...
Meka Suramma and ors. Vs. Surabathula Muralidhara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD683
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 1310 of 1980 on the file of the m Additional District Munsif, Rajahmundiy.2. The sole respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellants, from the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 29-1-1988. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S. No. 37 of 1988 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The appeal was allowed on 4-2-1994. Hence, the second appeal.3. The respondent pleaded that he purchased an extent of Acs.8.77 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 69 and 73 of Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Taluq from one Azimunnisa Begum for a consideration of Rs. 9,998/- under an agreement of sale, dated 21-9-1966, and thereafter, obtained a sale deed, dated 12-7-1972. According to him, the land was under cultivation of one Vasireddi Yerrayya as a tenant and that he handed over the possession of the land on 27-8-1971 under a letter of acknowledgment. He further pleaded th...
Chakka Ranga Rao Vs. Molla Mustari Banu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD838
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Suit filed by the respondent for declaration of his title to the portion shown as I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P. in the plan annexed to the plaint and for recovery of possession of that portion from the revision petitioner was decreed. When the respondent filed a petition for execution of that decree it was resisted by the revision petitioner. It is stated that when the respondent filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for delivery of the property in terms of the decree, the revision petitioner opposed the said petition and so the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed a petition seeking appointment of a Commissioner to note the physical features and to identify the property and the portion shown as I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P. in the plaint plan and to note other physical features, which was dismissed by the order under revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the portion allegedl...
Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC419
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. The point involved in these two criminal petitions is one and the same and, therefore, these two petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. Criminal Petition No. 1749 of 2005 is filed by M/s Sri Vijayalakshmi Agencies, a Partnership Firm, and three of its partners, whereas Criminal Petition No. 2553 of 2005 is filed by three partners of M/s. Sri Vijayalakshmi Agencies. The second respondent M/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited filed two Calendar Cases, being C.C. No. 1234 of 2004 and C.C. No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein and others alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and the Court below has taken cognizance thereof. These criminal petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in the above C.C. Nos. 1234 of 2004 and 1144 of 2004, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.3. The main contention ...
Shaik Jameela Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD692
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Newton, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for Kadapa Municipality. The matter is coming up for admission today.2. The writ petition is fled for a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned letter Roc. No. 6066/2005/Gl, dated 4.4.2006 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent-Corporation not to demolish the structures without paying the due compensation of the site as well as structures by initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings and pass such other suitable orders.3. The order dated 4.4.2006, which had been impugned, referred to supra reads as hereunder:As part of the development of the city, and in view of traffic problem, the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa has taken decision to widen the road from Justice Chennakesava Reddy statue junction to old Bus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »