Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
M. Lakshma Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD252; 2007(1)ALT232
D. Appa Rao, J.1. The petitioner impugns the proceedings of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, by way of this writ of mandamus, in refusing him to grant exemption of life tax and consequently purchase and allow to drive a car, Skoda Octavia Rider (Automatic Transmission), on the ground that he is a physically challenged person.2. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person with disability of lower limbs having afflicted with Post Polio Para Plegia. With the help of a caliper to left leg and with the aid of hand stick in his right hand he walks. The Medical Board constituted by the State Government issued a certificate that he is physically handicapped with 65% disability. Earlier he drove a Bajaj Scooter attached with the sidecar bearing Registration No. ATX 591. In the year 1990 he purchased a Maruti-800 car with automatic transmission bearing Registration No. AP 9 A 918 and later another Maruthi in 1998 Bearing No. AP 9 AP 9998. For these vehicles he was granted exemp...
P. Jagadamba Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD526; 2006(6)ALT152
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Subrahmanyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.2. The writ petitioner-P. Jagadamba filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001-, dated 20-11-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to declare the result of the election held on 17-8-2001 for the Office of Ward Members and Sarpanch of Gorrekal Gram Panchayat on the basis of the result sheet prepared by the 4th respondent and pass such other suitable orders.3. The respondent No. 5 was impleaded as party in W.P.M.P. No. 32832 of 2001 by order dated 8-12-2001.4. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The elections to Goprekal Gram Panchayat for the posts of Ward Members and Sarpanch were held on 17-8-2001. Three candidates including ...
K. Taheer Mahi Vs. General Manager (South), Department of Telecommunic ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD485
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao, representing Sri M. V.S. Suresh Kumar, the Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting Telephone Nos. 7631326 and 7640395 registered in the name of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and pass such other suitable orders.3. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 29-1-2001 and also passed orders in W.P.M.P. No. 1264 of 2001 granting interim direction on condition that the petitioner deposits half of the amount demanded through demand notice dated 12-12-2000. It is stated that the interim direction was complied with.4. Sri Srinivas Rao, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would submit that the disconnection effected is not in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the le...
Ranukanta Mullaiah Vs. Sircilla Rajamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD113; 2006(6)ALT443
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 150 of 1980, in the Court of District Munsif, Huzurabad, is the appellant. He filed the suit against the 1st respondent herein, initially, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent was impleaded. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. It was decreed through judgment, dated 6-10-1989. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed A.S. No. 26 of 1989, in the Court of District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was allowed on 31-3-1992, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court, for fresh disposal. On remand, the trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 31-12-1992. The appellant filed A.S. No. 7 of 1993, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1994. Hence, this second appeal.2. The appellant pleaded that his father, by name Pochaiah, and the father of the 1st respondent, by name Durgaiah, were sons of late Rajaram. According to him, his father died in the year...
Chinchilada Krishnam Raju Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Gir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD265
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 233 of 1994, on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant.2. The appellant was employed as a purchasing agent in the respondent-Corporation on 13.3.1959. His service register was opened on 30.10.1967. His date of birth was entered as 1.7.1934. According to the appellant, in November 1991, he came to know through one of his family friends that his date of birth was entered in the birth register maintained by the Panchayat, as 27.3.1936. After obtaining a certified extract of the same, he filed a representation, dated 24.12.1991, before the respondent, with a request to correct the date of birth in the service register and to permit him to remain in service, till he attains the age of superannuation, on the basis that his date of birth is 27.3.1936 and not 1.7.1934. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 30.1.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed ...
Konda Rama Krishna Reddy Vs. Bayana Sesha Reddy (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD360
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 59 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Badvel, is the appellant. The suit was filed by one Kanchamreddi Seshamma. While the suit was pending, she died and her nephew, Konda Ramakrishna Reddi, came on record as sole plaintiff, who is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for declaration of title over the suit schedule land admeasuring about Ac.0.10 cents. The trial Court decreed the suit on 28.4.1990. On an appeal by the defendants, however, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, by judgment dated 8.11.1994 in A.S.No. 10 of 1990 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.2. Late Seshamma filed the suit alleging that her husband, Kanchamreddi Nagi Reddi, made an application for assignment of the suit schedule land belonging to the Government to him. The Tahasildar, Badvel, conducted enquiry, obtained no objection from the Gram Panchayat-Porumamilla, and issued patta assigning the lan...
K. Pullaiah Vs. K. Gowraiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD82
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 3-8-2005 in I.A. No. 1077 of 2005 in LA. No. 1545 of 2004 in O.S. No. 458 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 458 of 2004 which is filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the up stair portion of the suit schedule house and also claiming damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' and 'the plaintiff respectively as they were arrayed in the suit.4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 458 of 2004 claiming that he had succeeded to the suit schedule house under a Registered Will dated 24-11-1997 executed by their father. The defendant in his written statement contended int...
Yelugula Shiva Prasada Rao Vs. Station House Officer, 1 Town Police St ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT703
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not initiating action against the complaints submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent on 8-10-2004 and 04-07-2005, to the 3rd respondent herein dated 01-12-2004 and the fax message dated 03-05-2004, is illegal and arbitrary and deprivatory of his life and personal liberty; in violation of Article 21 of Constitution; and for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to institute an inquiry against Respondents Nos. 6 to 8 herein pending their suspension, so as not to influence the witnesses and tamper with the records, and based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer to punish the erring Police Officials by way of for departmental action and prosecution under criminal law and to take necessary action against the accused in Cr.No. 65 of 2003 of P.S.II. Town, Visakhapatnam.The petitioner's case:2. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the Andhra Bank Housing Finance Limit...
Environment Protection Training and Search Institute and anr. Vs. P.B. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD301; 2006(5)ALT348
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. This appeal is against the order in W.P. No. 27159 of 2005 dated 14.2.2006 whereby the proceedings dated 7.12.2005, issued by the Appellants herein calling upon the respondent-writ petitioner to submit his representation to the charges held proved and asking him to show-cause as to why the penalty specified in Section 4, Rule 4.2 of the Staff Rules and Service Regulations of EPTRI should not be imposed, was quashed, the report of the enquiry officer set aside and the enquiry officer was directed to resume proceedings from the stage where the petitioner raised his objection to the competence of the Presenting Officer.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner, an Administration and Accounts Officer in the Appellant - Institute, was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 6.6.2005. A charge-sheet dated 17.6.2005 was issued calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation, to the charge-sheet, vide letter ...
Smkt. Kopparapu Ratna Kumari Vs. Smt. Batchu Lakshmi W/O Late Kalyan K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD249
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 6-3-2006 made in E.A.No. 7 of 2006 in E.P.No. 6 of 2004 in O.S.No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.2. Petitioner is a third party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. It is very interesting to notice that respondents 4 to 6 filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed with costs. Therefore, defendant- decree holders (respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed E.P.No. 6 of 2004 to recover the costs awarded in the suit and sought for attachment and sale of schedule property. The same was resisted by filing E.A.No. 7 of 2006 by the petitioner herein.3. It may be noticed that the petitioner herein is the mother of the plaintiffs in O....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »