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.
Akati Balrajavva Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD807; 2006(6)ALT15
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 8-3-2006 made in I.A. No. 2 of 2006 in O.S. No. 45 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are defendants. Petitioner laid the above suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. In spite of granting several opportunities, respondents have not filed their written statement. Therefore, their right to file written statement was forfeited by the Court below in the year 1997. However, thereafter, the 3rd respondent-defendant participated in the suit proceedings and cross-examined the witnesses of the petitioner-plaintiff. Later, the present I.A. No. 2 of 2006 is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying the Court to close the evidence of defendants, since their right to file the written statement was forfeited. Respondent No. 3 herein...
Sabbana Venugopala Rao Vs. Chintada Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT143
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 28-02-2006 made inO.S. No. 5 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the suit.3. The suit is laid for declaration of right of pre-emption of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants etc. The affidavit in chief of P.W.1 was filed and he was cross-examined before the Court below. When the document dated 27-3-1978 sought to be marked, the defendants took an objection that it not only requires proper stamp duty but also requires registration since the document is filed for the main relief sought in the suit. After hearing both the parties, the Court below passed the impugned order stating that the objection raised by the defendants for marking the document and also receiving the same is sustainable ...
George Coronation Club Vs. Potta Ramakrishna Rao (Died) by Lrs. and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD555
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant is a Club. It filed O.S. No. 167 of 1984 in the Court of District Munsif, Rajam, against the respondents, for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule premises. It was pleaded that the suit schedule premises was leased to the deceased-first respondent, through a registered lease deed, dated 26-7-1956, marked as Ex.A1, for a period of 25 years, for an annual rent of Rs. 20/-. The original lessee is said to have sub-leased the said premises to certain others, who were also arrayed as defendants in the suit It was urged that the lease under Ex.Al expired on 26-7-1981, by operation of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and thereby, the defendants became liable to be evicted. Certain other related pleas were also taken.2. Respondents 2 to 4 herein filed a written statement, opposing the suit. They raised objection as to the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain it. It was urged that the su...
K. Arun Kumar Vs. Sri Ramdass Motor Transport Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ227; 2007(1)ALD319; 2007(3)ALT282
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These four CMAs arise out of the common order, dated 30.8.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chitoor, in MVOP Nos. 262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999.2. On 30.10.1997, a mini lorry bearing No. KA-01-5083, owned by Sri Ramadas Motor Transport Limited (SRMT), and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, dashed against another lorry bearing No. ABC-4570, near Nalagampalle Village of Chittoor District. The lorry was owned by one Veerabhadraiah, and it was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Two persons, by name Arun Kumar and Gangadharam (for short 'the claimants'), who were travelling in the mini lorry, sustained injuries. They filed MVOP Nos. 262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999, respectively, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-and Rs. 75,000/-, respectively, against the respondents impleaded in the O.Ps. Through the common order dated 30.8.2004, the Tribunal awarded ...
irruvuru Ramachandra Reddy @ Chandraiah and ors. Vs. Koppala Bhushanam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT36
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 186 of 1994, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, filed this second appeal.2. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property; recovery of possession thereof, and for mandatory injunction, for removal of the structures on the suit schedule property, raised by the appellants herein. He pleaded that on 11-9-1985, his daughter entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1), with one Kakuturu Chandra Reddy, to purchase an extent of 33 ankanams of land. On the same day, through sale deed, marked as Ex.A-4, an extent of 18 ankanams was purchased by his daughter from the same vendor, under Ex.A-1. The balance of consideration is said to have been paid, by 10-5-1987. It was alleged that an endorsement, Ex.A-2, was obtained from the wife of the vendor, on 10-5-1987, keeping the agreement alive.3. The respondent stated that after the death of Chandra Reddy, he approached his...
Chandrakala Vs. G. Sandhya Rani and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC394
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 20th April, 2006 made by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 27 of 2006, confirming the order dated 14th February, 2006 made in Criminal M.P. No. 5673 of 2005 in C.C. No. 430 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. Petitioner is the accused in the above case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The cheque issued by the petitioner was presented to the Bank and it was returned with an endorsement 'Account is not with us, no record'. Subsequently, a legal notice was issued for which the petitioner did not give any reply and later a complaint has been filed to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. During pendency of the case, the petitioner filed Cri. M.P. No. 5673 of 2005 under Section 45 of the In...
Lavu Narmada Vs. Convernor, Eamcet-06, Jntu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD275; 2006(5)ALT240
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed by a student, who passed her Intermediate with 97.3 per cent of marks with optional subjects of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not deleting question Nos.46, 47 and 61 of the Zoology Paper of EAMCET-2006 on the ground that the said questions were framed from the syllabus which was not prescribed for Intermediate and for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the said questions and revaluate the answer scripts and issue rank card accordingly.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after passing the Intermediate the petitioner appeared for the EAMCET-06, Agriculture and Medical stream conducted by the respondent herein with Hall Ticket No. 3524404 held on 4.5.2006. The EAMCET-2006 examination is of Intermediate standard and the syllabus was notified by the Board of Intermediate and on the recommendation of the said syllabus...
Moode Lakshma Naik Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD23
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued Rule Nisi and called for records on 14-7-2006. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had taken notice and requested time to get instructions in the matter. Thus, as per the directions of this Court, the matter is appearing in the Motion List today.2. Sri Subramanyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that the impugned action, virtually is a suo motu action by the Government and such suo motu action relating to amalgamation is impermissible and the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms. No. 232, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, dated 18-4-1995. The learned Senior Counsel also would submit on the aspect of the power to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel would maintain that even if otherwise, prima facie, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the impugned action is invalid, there is no point in permitting t...
Management of Divisional Engineer, Telecommunications Vs. Venkataiah a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD372; [2007(112)FLR24]
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, (Central), Hyderabad in ID. No. 68 of 1990 dated 18.11.1993, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and protection of seniority among employees of Mahaboobnagar District, the present writ petition is filed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent was employed on daily wages as a casual mazdoor from 10.1.1984 to 30.11.1984. After a break of seven months, his services was again engaged on 1.7.1985 and he worked continuously till 31.3.1986. During this period, between 1.7.1985 and 31.3.1986, he actually worked for 183 days and was not given weekly offs. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner herein, in retrenching the 1st respondent from service, a dispute was raised and consequent thereto the Central Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The order of reference reads as under:Whether the action of...
Gunturu Venkata Rao Vs. Gunturu Venkateswarlu (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD103; 2006(5)ALT707
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-12-1994 passed in O.S.No. 150 of 1988 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole.2. The appellant is the second plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit O.S.No. 150 of 1988 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and the second plaintiff was the only beneficiary in respect of the suit schedule property vide settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff continued the suit. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit holding that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.3. It is the case of the first plaintiff that the suit schedule property, a residential house situated at Lamba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »