Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
P. Annamma and ors. Vs. N.N.A. Patrick and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC295; 2007ACJ830; 2006(5)ALD598; 2006(5)ALT339
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. Since the parties and the impugned judgment in both the appeals are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool by the order and decree dated 26-10-1998 in M.V.O.P. No. 713/1996, the claimants filed C.M.A. No. 1144/1999. On the other hand, aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the above said M.V.O.P., the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 451/2005.4. The case of the claimants in brief is that on 8-8-1996 at about 6.30 p.m. P. David, who is the deceased, working in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, F.R.L. Sub-Division, Kallur, engaged the Allwyn Nissan Mini Lorry bearing No. A.P.21 -T-2297 belonging to the 1st respondent on hire for one day for transportation of his household articles from Kurnool to Gadivemula and again from Gadivemula to Kurnool. On 8-8-1996 in the evening the deceased left from Ku...
Gudiwada Munemma Vs. Jawardhal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT587
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition has been directed against the order dated 3.3.2005 passed in O.E.P. No. 423 of 2003 in O.S. No. 684 of 2002 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, whereby and where under the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree-holder seeking arrest and detention of the respondent/judgment-debtor in civil prison for realization of decretal amount.2. The petitioner herein is the decree-holder and the respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The petitioner obtained a money decree against the respondent in O.S. No. 684 of 2002 to recover Rs. 18,920/-with costs and subsequent interest from 17.7.2003. He filed E.P. No. 423 of 2003 and sought for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. He filed his affidavit along with the execution petition stating that the respondent/judgment-debtor is a Talari getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-and ...
Jalla Bhadrayya Vs. Tatikonda Suryakanthamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD327
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1984 in the Court of the District Munsif, Chinthalapudi is the appellant. He filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 5-12-1981. It was pleaded that the first respondent and her son, the second respondent, offered to sell the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents, for a consideration of Rs. 1,150/-, at the rate of Rs. 115/- per cent and that on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,050/- was paid. The sale deed was to be executed as and when the balance of sale consideration is paid. Possession of the property was said to have been delivered to the appellant on the date of agreement itself. According to the appellant, he offered to pay the balance of consideration to the respondents, but they have refused to receive the same.2. On behalf of the respondents, a common written statement was filed. They denied the very execution of the agreement of sale. It w...
Karri Marriyamma and anr. Vs. Penumatcha Ramamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD127
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 1132 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Vijayawada filed this second appeal. The deceased first respondent and her son, the second respondent, filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein and their vendor, who was impleaded as the first defendant, from causing obstructions in the site lying in between the lines 'JKL' and 'TADMPU' in the plaint sketch and for mandatory injunction directing the appellants herein to remove the thatched sheds raised in the portion shown in the plaint sketch.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 27-10-1987. Aggrieved thereby, the second plaintiff, i.e., the second respondent herein filed A.S. No. 73 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed through the judgment, dated 25-4-1994. Hence, the second appeal.3. The deceased first respondent had three sons i.e., the second resp...
Chetti China Appalaswamy and ors. Vs. Poona Laxmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD204
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 14.10.1993 this Court made the following order:Admit. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is whether having regard to the facts and circumstances, the lower appellate Court is justified in not following the principle applied by the trial Court that measurements will prevail over the boundaries.Submissions of Sri V.C.H. Naidu:2. Sri V.C.H. Naidu, the learned Counsel representing die appellants would submit that die following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the second appeal.Whether the plaintiff has right to claim beyond the area under Ex. A1 on the ground that the boundaries prevail over the extents in the facts and circumstances of the case?3. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No. 1501 of 1980 and also the learned HI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S. No. 64 of ...
Kuppili Venkata Rao Vs. Kuppili Suryakanthamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD123
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 185 of 74 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Parvatipuram, filed this second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21-7-1994, passed in A.S. No. 19 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram.2. The suit was originally filed by one Kuppili Narayana Rao. During the pendency of the suit, he died and his legal representatives, i.e., respondents 1 to 8 herein were brought on record and respondents 9 and 10 herein, who were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3, died.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.4. The plaintiff pleaded that himself and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of late Bangarayya. It was stated that the property, that has fallen to the share of Bangarayya in the partition with his brother, was divided into four shares and one share each was allotted to Bangarayya and his sons i.e., the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. It was further pleaded that...
Kotipalli Nageswara Rao @ Kotupalli Vs. Yandrapalli Nagaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD790
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel.2. On 28-10-1993, this Court made the following order:In view of the substantial questions of law mentioned in Ground No. 10, the second appeal is admitted.The substantial questions of law specified under Ground No. 10 are as hereunder:(a) When the defendant failed to give reply to the registered notice prior to the institution of the suit, will it not amount to admission to deny the suit claim later?(b) Whether the comparison of signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by the competent Court can be interfered with by the appellate Court on the sole ground that it is of lesser value without the appellate Court itself indulging in such verification ?(c) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in rejecting the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and whether the reasons assigned therefor are in accordance with the settled law ?3. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would comment that the suit is based on a promissory...
Koleti Maruthi Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD688
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 7-8-2006. Sri Bhaskar Reddy entered appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj represents Respondent No. 1.2. Sri Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the language employed in Section 22 read with Section 184(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that the impugned order dated 22.7.2006 made by the first respondent is not in accordance with law and hence let there be a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would contend that even in the light of the language of Section 22 read with Section 184(2) of the Act, the District Collector as such has no role to play and the procedure as ...
Sri Paravathi Parameshwara Cables, K.M. Valasa, Rep. by Managing Partn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD365; 2006(5)ALT647; [2007]135CompCas581(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. All these revisions raise common questions of law and fact and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Several applications were filed before the trial Court and the trial Court passed a common order, which is challenged by way of these revisions. It appears that an award was passed in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') by respondent No. 1 in these revisions. The present petitioners filed applications seeking a direction to the applicants in applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to deposit 75% of the amount awarded or to dismiss the mainO.Ps. for non-compliance of Section 7 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Act'). The applications were dismissed by the Court. Therefore, these revisi...
K. Yadaiah Vs. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT49
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 7-2-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing enquiry report dated 23-8-1995 and order of punishment dated 16-9-1995.2. The appellant joined the service as Naik in the Railway Protection Force on 17-11-1979. By memorandum dated 26-4-1995, the disciplinary authority initiated departmental enquiry against him under Rule 187 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 for short 'the Rules' on the following charge;Sri K. Yadaiah, Naik - 974/DR/UBL is hereby charged for his gross misbehaviour and indisciplineactin that:While he was on cash escorting duty of Pay Unit No. 7 with Arms and Ammunition along with cashier Sri M. Mahattma, Sri G.G. Chowdhary and Constable Sri B.R. Beshnur and while camping at Cash Office/GDG during the night of 10/11-4-1995 he pointed out rifle at Sri M. Mahattma, Cashier/Hubli, Sri G.G. Chodhari.ASIPF/DRAJBL when performing sent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »