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.
Vanga Ramanujayya Vs. Atyam Suryanarayana Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD49; 2007(4)ALT268
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 216 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Palakol filed this second appeal, aggrieved by the decree passed against him by the trial Court and affirmation of the same by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur in A.S. No. 15 of 1988.2. The respondent and the appellant are the owners of neighbouring buildings. While the respondent is said to have purchased his property in the year 1912, the appellant purchased his property in the year 1958. The respondent filed the suit for injunction to restrain the appellant from making any construction in the first floor. He alleged that the buildings are adjacent to each other and construction of the first floor by the appellant would result in prevention of passage of light and air completely. Necessary particulars of the openings and ventilators of the properties were furnished.3. The appellant resisted the suit by stating that the respondent does not have any easementary right against h...
M. Sivaram and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1259
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 410 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandyal. The petitioners herein are accused 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 410 of 2004 for offences under Sections 418, 420, 425 and 427 IPC.2. A complaint was filed in Cr. No. 100 of 2004 before the Nandyal III Town Police Station by the complainant, a partnership firm carrying on business in the supply of cotton bales on short term credit, against six accused. The Ist accused is a cotton mill represented by its Executive Director, the 2nd accused is the Executive Director and accused Nos. 3 to 6 are the Directors of the 1st accused mill.3. Since the rival contentions revolve mainly around the question as to whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint/charge sheet, even if accepted as true, make out a case against the petitioners herein, of their having committed the offences of which they are charged, it is necessary to extract the rele...
S. Purushotham and 4 ors. Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD642
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in O.A.Nos. 5698 and 5904 of 1999 dated 14.02.2000, W.P. Nos. 16842 of 2000 and 8551 of 2001 are filed by the Section Officers of different departments of the Government of A.P. W.P. No. 14651 of 2000 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal in these O.As. In the aforesaid two O.As, the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 368 General Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 18.8.1999, and G.O.Ms. No. 397, General Administration (Ser.V) Department dated 20.9.1999, were under challenge, by the Private Secretaries of the Secretaries to the Government, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The dispute, between the Section Officers and the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government, revolves around the criteria prescribed and the restrictions imposed for promotion to the posts of Assistant Secretaries to the G...
Kum. Vijayalaxmi Devi Vs. the Director, Tribal Welfare and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD699
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner appeared for EAMCET-2006 for taking admission into the Engineering course and secured rank No. 74116. Pursuant to the intimation received from the Convener EAMCET-2006, she appeared for the counselling on 29.7.2006. Since she claimed admission under Scheduled Tribe category claiming social status as 'Konda Dora' (Scheduled Tribe), the 2nd respondent-Convener directed the petitioner to get clearance from the 1st respondent-Director of Tribal Welfare. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent, and produced the caste certificate dated 4-6-1993 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Salur, certifying that she belongs to 'Konda Dora' - ST community. However, the 1st respondent, having entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the social status claimed by the petitioner, advised her to appear before the Director TCR & TI on 10.8.2006, along with her parents, who have full knowledge about her community and to furnish oral and document...
P. Prabhakara Rao S/O. Chokka Rao and anr. Vs. Y. Venkata Mohan Rao S/ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP405; 2006(6)ALD45
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.1996 passed in O.S. No. 35 of 1993 by the Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.2. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 35 of 1993 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.10.1979. Originally the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 241 of 1980 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was transferred to the Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District and numbered as O.S. No. 425 of 1982, later transferred to Sub-Court, Ranga Reddy District and numbered as O.S. No. 603 of 1983 and again transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was numbered as O.S. No. 35 of 1993. The learned Additional District Judge by judgment dated 03.12.1999 decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendants therein preferred this...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC83(AP)
J. Chelameswar J.1. These two writ petitions raise an identical issue. Therefore, the facts in WP No. 1278 of 2006 are taken as representative facts and the writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows :For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this honourable court may pass writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring that Section 22(3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 along with Rule 18(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and Explanation VI of Section 2(28) along with Section 2(29)(c)(i)(a) and rule 17(2)(k) are ultra vires and beyond the legislative competence of the State of Andhra Pradesh under serial No. 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, being violative of serial No. 92-A of the Union List and Articles 269(1)(g) and 286, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 besides being ultr...
M.G. Brothers Finance Ltd. Vs. J. Badarinath and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD451
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner obtained a decree for payment of moneyagainst respondents and filed E.P. No. 74 of 2001 for recovery of the amount due under the said decree and realized some amounts from respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for which part satisfaction was recorded and that E.P. was closed. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 90 of 2004 for recovery of the balance amount due under the decree by way of attachment of the salary of the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent filed his counter contending that inasmuch as joint liability is different from joint and several liability, and since the decree holder cannot divide the amount due under a decree obtained by him against several persons and recover those portions from the judgment-debtors as per his choice and since the decree holder chose to proceed against the other respondents earlier, it cannot, subsequently, seek attachment of his salary, when the other respondents against whom it chose to proceed ...
Sri Tirumala Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. Gpr Housing (P) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP392; 2006(5)ALD359
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S, No. 20 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-7-1998, in respect of suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.33.33 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Mangalpally Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant entered into agreement initially for an extent of Acs. 150.00 of land, who later executed sale deeds in respect of Acs. 116.06 guntas in favour of the nominees of the plaintiff but failed to execute the sale deeds in respect of balance area of Acs.33.33 guntas. The defendant opposed the suit inter alia raising objection that the agreement of sale, which is engrafted on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- cannot be looked into as per the provisions of A.P. Act 21 of 1995. The defendant contended that when the immovable property...
M.V.V. Satyanarayana, Contractor Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD284; 2006(5)ALT656
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. By this application, filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant seeks to appoint an Arbitrator and refer the dispute for adjudication.2. It is stated that the applicant is a contractor, executing civil works. In response to the tender notice published by the respondents for construction of 3rd B. G. Electric Loco Shed to home 100 Locomotives at Kazipet and also for construction of Inspection shed and examining pits with attached repair section, the applicant submitted his tender on 07-08-1998, which was accepted by the respondents as a successful bid on 09-12-1998. In terms of the acceptance letter, the value of the work was Rs. 1,01,84,182-70 ps for both the schedules A and B works which are to be executed within a period of four months from the date of acceptance letter i.e. the work has to be completed on or before 08-04-1999. It is further stated that the parties have entered into an agreement dated 09-0...
Shaik Rafath Begum Vs. T.V.R. Anjaneyulu (Died) Per Lrs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP23; 2006(6)ALD769
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the revision petitioner, she gave her affidavit in lieu of the chief-examination and was cross-examined in part. Later she did not appear before the Court on the ground of sickness and so her Counsel filed a memo informing the Court that as revision petitioner is unable to attend the Court in view of her sickness her evidence may be eschewed and her husband who is also her Power of Attorney, may be examined as a witness on her behalf. Thereafter, respondent filed a memo contending that inasmuch as Power of Attorney cannot be a substitute for the party, permission to examine her general Power of Attorney as a witness on her behalf cannot be granted to the revision petitioner in view of the ratio in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Limited and Ors. 2005 (3) ALD 43 (SC) and Ravula Needlamma v. Sandaiah : 2005(6)ALD295 . Accepting the contentions raised in the said memo, the learned trial Judge, by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »