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.
K.A. Prakash Rao Vs. Smt. U. Indira Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC366
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 02.04.1998 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 15 of 1997 and 32 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the appeals filed by A3 and A1, A2 and A4 setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed in C.C.No. 622 of 1993 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. The appellant herein is the complainant and whereas the respondents 1 to 4 are the accused in C.C.No. 622 of 1993.3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the complaint by the appellant/complainant before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are:The appellant and R1 to R3 are the partners in M/s Simhapuri Builders (R4). Some differences arose between them with regard to partnership business in the year 1992. According...
Prateek Vohra Vs. Gautam Jana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP390; 2006(5)ALD18
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. He filed O.P. No. 309 of 2004 in the Family Court at Secunderabad under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short 'the Act') for divorce against the 2nd respondent. Apart from other grounds, he attributed infidelity to the 2nd respondent and made certain allegations. He impleaded the 1st respondent herein as respondent No. 2 in the O.P., on the allegation that he had unholy relationship with the 1st respondent. The O.P. is pending.2. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 955 of 2005 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, read with Rule 101 of Civil Rules of Practice. He contended that the petitioner herein impleaded him as the respondent in the O.P., with a mala fide intention and deliberate motive. According to him, the occasion to implead for third party in an O.P., filed under Section 13 of the Act would arose, if only any acts of adultery are attributed by one spouse to the other,...
M. Hymavathi and anr. Vs. M. Koteswararao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP395; 2006(5)ALD328
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 1-11-2004 made in O.S. No. 641 of 1990 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada.2. Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit filed by the 1st respondent are the petitioners in this revision. Respondent No. 1 laid a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Defendants 4 and 6 filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed, defendants 2, 4 and 5 adduced their evidence and it was also closed. Though defendants 4 and 6 supported the case of the plaintiff, after the evidence of the contesting defendants was closed, they wanted to lead their evidence. At that stage, defendant No. 1 filed a memo praying the Court to pass necessary orders for disentitling defendants 4 and 6 to adduce evidence. It is stated by the 1st defendant that if the petitioner-defendants 4 a...
Eppala China Venkateswarlu and ors. Vs. Secretary to Govt., Social Wel ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD478
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.2. This matter was adjourned to this day, since the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj requested time to get instructions relating to the position of the Gram Panchayats in question, till the prior elections.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had stated before this Court that in the prior elections, the general rules relating to the reservations alone were made applicable and in view of the fact that the District Collector had issued a clarification, which is placed before this Court at present, since these are schedule areas, all these offices are reserved to the Scheduled Tribe. The proceedings are also placed before this Court.4. Sri Y.S. Sai Vara Prasad, learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the Gram Panchayats in question ...
Ommi Setti (Died) and anr. Vs. Heera Chand
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALT330
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard both sides, and at their request, the main revision petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner, who is the landlord, seeks to assail the order dated 02-02-2006 in I.A. No. 9 of 2005 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior CivilJudge, Anakapalle, wherein the respondent herein was permitted to file an additional counter in the main case.3. The few facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition, are that the eviction case has been filed by the petitioner herein inter alia on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement, and the same has been contested by the respondent on various grounds. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed another suit in O.S. No. 147 of 1997 for recovery of arrears which has also been contested by the respondents. In both the cases, the respondent filed counters and contesting the matters. However, it appears that the plea which has been taken in the additional counter...
K.V. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. M. Sateesh Kumar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT70
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent who obtained a decree for recovery of money against the revision petitioner filed E.P. 17 of 2000 seeking attachment and sale of the immovable properties belonging to the revision petitioner. During the pendency of that E.P. respondent filed another E.P. 17 of 2006 seeking arrest and detention of the revision petitioner and filed E.A. 32 of 2006 seeking arrest of the revision petitioner by dispensing with notice under Rule 37 CPC. The executing Court allowed the said petition and ordered arrest of the revision petitioner by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as respondent is proceeding against the properties of the revision petitioner, he cannot, by filing a second E.P., seek arrest of the revision petitioner, and thereby curtail his personal liberty. By placing strong reliance on Pothuneedi Laxmana Rao v. Kadasu Muneswara Rao : 2005(4)ALD833 . Bad...
K. Ramabrahmam Vs. G. Narsingh Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD353
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant filed O.S. No. 3 of 1982 in the Court of District Munsif, Rammanapet, against the respondent, for the relief of declaration, that he is the owner of 15 acres of land in Sy.No. 282 of Aroor Village, and for recovery of possession of the same from the respondent. He also claimed past mesne profits, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum, for three years, prior to the date of filing of the suit.2. The appellant pleaded that the mother of the respondent herein, by name, Radha Bai, borrowed certain amount from him, in connection with the marriage of her daughter in or about 1950, by mortgaging the suit land to him. He stated that since Radha Bai could not repay the amount, by the year 1954, she executed an unregistered sale deed dated 23-4-1954, in his favour, for the said land, for a consideration of Rs. 750/-. The possession is said to have been delivered on the same day. He, however, pleaded that the unregistered sale deed was misplaced, and lost by him...
Hemarajani Tubes Private Limited Vs. Central Store Purchase Organizati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT686
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 28-3-2006 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 937 of 2005, the petitioner M/s. Hemarajani Tubes Pvt. Ltd., has filed WAMP No. 1323 of 2006 for review of that order. It has also filed application for staying of all further proceedings in Case No. 38/1 /128 pending before the Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council (Non-petitioner No. 2)2. Sri T. Jagan Mohan Reddy argued that while allowing Writ Petition No. 21693 of 2004 filed by the Central Store Purchase Organisation on the ground that order dated 17-7-2004 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice, the learned Single Judge misinterpreted notice dated 7-5-2004 issued by the Commissionerate of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same mistake has been repeated by the Division Bench. learned Counsel emphasized that non-petitioner No. 2 had alrea...
Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD165
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, represented by its Upa-Sarpanch, filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in upgrading the Mahabubabad Major Gram Panchayat as Grade-I Municipality, on the basis of the income as well as population, under Section 2(42-a) and Section 3 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, and Rule 3 of A.P. Transitional Area and Smaller Urban Areas (Fixation of Criteria) Rules 1955, as well as the resolutions passed by the Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat Committee and also the recommendation of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Mahabubabad as illegal, arbitrary, null and void, and consequently direct the respondents to upgrade the Mahabubabad Major Gram Panchayat as Grade-I Municipality, and pass such other suitable orders.2. Sri Mittakola Venkata Rama Rao, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, had taken this Court through the criteria, which are to be satisfied for the purpose of ...
Sadula Janardhan (Huf) and ors. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, MaIn Bran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(AP)117; [2006]286ITR291(AP)
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners herein, have deposited a sum of Rs. 40,22,000/- with the 1st respondent-Bank under the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988, to get the benefit of exemption under Section 54 of the Income tax Act, 1961 with regard to the sale of their immovable properties.2. As per the Scheme the assessee, in order to seek exemption, can deposit the amount either in the form of savings deposit, or in the form of term deposit. Admittedly, the petitioners have deposited the amount in term deposit, which is classified as account-B under the Scheme. In the month of October, 2005, the petitioners made a request to the 1st respondent-bank to transfer the funds from their term deposit by opening a savings account, which is classified as account- A. However, the 1st respondent-bank insisted that the petitioners should get approval of the concerned Assessing Officer for such transfer of funds from one account to another. A letter dated 1.2.2006 was addressed by the 1st respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »