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.
Syed Abdul Majeed and ors. Vs. Joint Collector-ii and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD348; 2006(5)ALT754
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 claimed to be sons and third petitioner claimed to be daughter-in-law of late Syed Galib, who was allegedly a protected tenant to the extent of half share in the land admeasuring Acs. 118.32 guntas in Survey Nos. 334 to 339, 341 and 342 situated at Nomula Village of Manchala Mandai in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, the subject land). The petitioners allege that they are in possession of the land after death of their predecessor. Gulam Mohammed, the father of the fourth respondent, dispossessed the petitioners from the land admeasuring Acs.9.20 guntas in Survey No. 339, but admitted that the petitioners are successors of protected tenant. The petitioners also referred to the suit being O.S. No. 2 of 1967 filed by Gulam Mohammed - the landholder; against one Laxmana Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao seeking correction of record of rights and appeal being A.S. No. 30 of 1969 in which the claim of the petitioners as successors of protected te...
Sonti Srinivasa Rao Vs. Boina Lakshmi Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD233; 2006(5)ALT825
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the very numbering of an election petition, presented in the Court of District Judge, Machilipatnam, against the petitioner herein.2. In the elections, held on 27-9-2005, for the Gudivada Municipality, the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein contested from 27th Ward. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent is the defeated candidate, and the 2nd respondent is a voter from the said ward. They got issued a notice, as contemplated under Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, for short 'the Act', to the Commissioner of Municipality, the 5th respondent herein, stating that the petitioner had three children, at the time of filing his nomination, and thereby he incurred disqualification, under Section 13-B of the Act. Alleging that no action has been taken thereon, they filed an election petition, with a prayer to declare the election of the p...
M. Gopalakrishna Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protect ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD704; 2006(5)ALT408
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20.01.1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service, as confirmed in proceedings dated 16.04.1996 of the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revisional order dated 5/6-01.1999 of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Railway Protection Force (for short 'R.P.F') Constable on 26.08.1985. According to the petitioner, after completion of duty on 30.09.1994, and on coming to know that his wife was behaving abnormally, he went to his native place. Petitioner contends that he gave a 'Security Control Message' on 02.10.1994 at about 5.30 A.M. seeking ten days leave, since his wife had expired. Petitioner submits that his father-in-law gave a false complaint against him and his parents in C.K. Dinne police station and that he was arrested on 02.10.1994 itself.3. The 1st respondent is...
G. Sunitha Vs. Election Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD515; 2006(5)ALT229
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the counsel on record.2. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner Sri P. Giri Krishna states that when the petitioner requested for recounting and made an application, the Returning Officer is not justified in declaring the result of the election. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant Rules and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction, which is prayed for in the Writ Petition, be granted or rule nisi to be issued and appropriate interim direction to be granted.3. On the contrary, Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3, would maintain that inasmuch as the Returning Officer already had rejected the plea of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the result of the election also had been duly declared, the remedy available to the writ petitioner is only to approach the Election Tribunal and hence at this stage the Writ Petition cannot be enter...
Dasari Perumal and anr. Vs. D.M. Govindaswamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD805
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are the respondents in A.S. No. 23 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. They filed LA. No. 83 of 2005 under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send for the case bundle in A.S. No. 88 of 1990 on the file of the same Court from the Central Record Room, Chittoor. The purpose was to compare the signatures of an Advocate by name T. Venkatrathnam on Ex.A3, which is part of record in A.S. No. 23 of 2004 and those said to be available in A.S. No. 88 of 1990. Through its order, dated 20-8-2005, the lower appellate Court dismissed the LA. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. Sri V. Jagapathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the effort of the petitioners was to ensure that the genuinity of the documents, which are part of the record in the suit, is established and that the lower appellate Court ought to have acceded to the request of the petitioners.3. Sri M.P. ...
K. Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad Vs. K. Poornachander Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD333
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The sole defendant is the appellant. One K. Poorna Chandra Rao represented by his General Power of Attorney holder (GPA holder), Mrs. P. Santhakumari filed a suit being O.S. No. 67 of 1984 for declaration of title, delivery of possession and mesne profits from June, 1980 till delivery of possession. The Court of Subordinate Judge, Markapur, where the suit was instituted, dismissed the suit after regular trial. The Court of Additional District Judge, Ongole, however, allowed the appeal being A.S.No. 43 of 1989 filed by the respondents decreeing the suit. This Judgment of the lower appellate Court is now assailed as vitiated by error of law. At the outset, the fact of the matter as summarized by the trial Court may be stated in brief. The parties are referred to as per the cause title in the suit.2. One Krishnavajjula Ramabhupala Sarma (Sarma, for brevity), the father of the defendant was the owner of suit schedule land admeasuring Acs. 11.42 in Survey No. 8 situated at ...
Akash Cable T.V. Network Private Limited Rep. by Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD707; 2006(4)ALT786
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. Akash Cable TV Network Private Limited, Nellore, is the petitioner in W.P.No. 27978 of 2005. The respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition are the petitioners in the other writ petition - W.P.No. 768 of 2006.2. Since both the matters are interconnected and the prayer in both the writ petitions being common, these two writ petitions are heard together.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No. 27978of2005.4. In both these writ petitions, a Writ of Mandamus has been sought declaring the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Inter-connection Regulations, 2004 as illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and consequently to set aside the order dated 14-12-2005 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Petition No. 97 (C) of 2005 being arbitrary and without jurisdiction.5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are...
Shankaramma and ors. Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD345; 2006(6)ALT23
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The petitioners herein are the tenants and the first respondent herein is the landlord in respect of the premises bearing No. 1 1-4-272/2, situated at Medibavi, Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad, The first respondent filed R.C. No. 137 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the tenants from the said premises on the ground of wilful default, denial of title and bona fide requirement of the said premises.2. The Rent Controller, by order dated 16-8-1996, dismissed the R.C., on the ground that there is no jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenants, in view of the title set up by the tenants, and therefore, unless the relationship between the landlord and tenants is decided by a competent civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition and the petitioner was given liberty to initiate proceedings before a competent Court of law. Against the same, the landlord file...
Kothapalle Hazarathaiah and ors. Vs. Nalisetty Venkata Narasiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT721
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two revisions are filed against a common judgment dated 26-9-2000, rendered by the learned District Judge, Nellore, in C.M.A. Nos. 26 and 37 of 1995. The appeals in turn were directed, against two separate orders, dated 24-4-1995, passed by the District Munsif, Atmakur, in A.T.C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1989. The proceedings arose under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, for short 'the Act'. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant, in respect of Ac. 13-00ofdry land in Sy. No. 802 of Atmakur village and Mandal, Nellore District.2. One Mr. Sreekanthaiah was the owner of the land, referred to above. The petitioners herein purchased the same, through sale deed dated 7-7-1977. The respondent filed O.S. No. 197 of 1977, in the Court of District Munsif, Atmakur, against the petitioners herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit property. On realizing that the suit was not maintainable in respec...
Golla Venkanna and ors. Vs. Raheema Bee
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD172; 2006(5)ALT272
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, D.Ws. 1 to 4, Exs. A1 to A11 and also Ex. B. 1 and B. 2 and would contend that the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and further had not appreciated the evidence available on record properly, while recording a finding relating to forcible dispossession.3. On the contrary, Sri Vijaysen Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had pointed out to the relevant findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also certain admissions made by D.W.I in the witness box and would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault and hence, opportunity may be given to the revision petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »