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.
Government of A.P. and anr. Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD840
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Government, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 660 of 2006 dated 17.2.2006, whereby the O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage directing that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded within two months, failing which the respondent-applicant, who has been under suspension, was to be re-inducted into service.2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent, (applicant in the O.A), was working as the incharge Manager of Machilipatnam Municipality, when he was placed under suspension by the 1st petitioner herein, vide G.O.Rt. No. 502, M.A. & UD(E2) dated 7.4.2005, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Charges were subsequently framed and served on the respondent-applicant vide G.O.Rt. No. 1329 M.A.(E2) Department dated 22.9.2005. His grievance before the Tribunal was that, though he was placed under suspension on 7.4.2005 and a charge-sheet had been issued vide G.O. Rt. No. 1329 dated 22.9.2...
Lavu Sri Krishna Rao S/o Satyanarayana and Ors. Vs. Dr. Moturi Nagendr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP25; 2006(6)ALD145; 2006(6)ALT496
G.V. Seethapathy, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1998 in O.S. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, wherein the trial Court, while dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction granted alternatively preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and allotted the remaining half share to the 4th defendant and allowing the plaintiff to be in possession of three rooms and restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the same till a final decree is drawn and the plaintiff is allotted his specific half share.2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The respondent herein filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule ...
Shankarlal Pallod and ors. Vs. Zaheerabad Municipality
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT75
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Rule Nisi was issued on 14-3-2006.2. Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, the Standing Counsel representing the respondent -Zaheerabad Municipality had taken notice and requested time to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is filed by the respondent.3. Elaborate submissions were made by both the Counsel and both the Counsel made a request to dispose of the main Writ Petition itself. Hence, the Writ Petition is accordingly being disposed of.4. Contentions of Sri Ramakrishna Reddy: Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the impugned proceedings and also several factual details which ultimately led to the filing of the Writ Petition and would maintain that in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality in question in L.G. Case No. 66/91 it would not lie in the mouth of the said Municipality to contend otherwise relating to title to the property. The learned senior Counsel a...
Guda Vinoda Vs. Housing Municipal Administration, U.D. Dept. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD227; 2006(5)ALT399
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri G.V.L.N. Murthy, the Counsel representing the writ petitioner, Sri Durga Nageswar Rao, the Counsel representing R2 and R3 and Sri Venkat Reddy, the Counsel representing R.5.2. Sri G.V.L.N. Murthy the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also ventilated the actual grievance of the writ petitioner and would maintain that though certain factual aspects had been narrated in Para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition what is being prayed for is that respondents 2 and 3 to act in accordance with law in relation to such constructions made by 5th respondent in deviation to the sanctioned plan and nothing more. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the undertaking filed by the 5th respondent that she will not violate the sanctioned plan, the petitioner need not be driven to a civil Court. The learned Counsel a...
Damera Raj Kumar S/O D. Komuraiah Vs. Doli Srinivas S/O D. Yellaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP14; 2006(5)ALD694
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent. 2. Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner would maintain that the respondent had taken the consent of the petitioner by coercion and also by threats and hence the said consent is no consent at all. The learned Counsel also would submit that in I.A. No. 158/2005 an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been obtained in Vacation Court and the matter was posted to 26-6-2005 and urgent notice was served on the petitioner on 31-5-2005 and the Court Amin filed report on 10-6-2005 and on the very same day the respondent sought for referring the matter to Lok Adalat for recording compromise and on the request of the respondent the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and on the same day the award was made. In the light of these facts the Counsel woul...
Kanigalla Venkata Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Vice-chairman, Vgtm Urban Dev ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD442; 2006(5)ALT361
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.PART-I INTRODUCTION:1. This common Judgment shall dispose of these petitions involving common questions for consideration. There are mainly three categories of petitioners. First category of petitioners (W.P. Nos. 9458, 10491, 10304 and 10773 of 2005) are the wholesale merchants of Vijayawada, who are also members of a society called Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial Complex Members Welfare Society (Merchants Association, for brevity). The petitioners in this sub-group are also members of their respective trade associations. Second category of cases is filed by the wholesale merchants, who are allegedly not members of the Merchants Association, but they are members of their respective trade associations. Vijayawada Daily Parcel Lorry Office Owners Welfare Association and other Lorry transporters filed third category of cases. The alleged restraint imposed on the right to carry on business by seizingtheir respective business places/shops brought them together for redres...
Dr. G. Vimala Kumari Vs. Babu Ravichandrashekar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD790
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Tr. CMP is filed with a prayer to transfer VMC No. 1 of 2006, listed in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwad, which, thereafter, is scheduled to be transmitted to the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Senior Division, Hubli, to the Family Court at Hyderabad,2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 14-11-2003 at Hyderabad. They were also blessed with a child. The respondent filed VMC No. l of 2006, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), against the petitioner, by urging several grounds. Before that, he filed MC No. 1 of 2006, for the same relief, but had withdrawn it. The petitioner on the other hand, filed FCOP No. 481 of 2006 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. She pleads that it would be difficult and unsafe for her, to attend the Court at Hubli. It is alleged that that she has been subjected to harassment, by t...
Siddapally Rami Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Ap. Represented by the Pub ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC701
ORDERP. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C. No. 10 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal. The petitioners herein are A-5 to A-8 in the above calendar case.2. The case of the petitioners is that the SI of Police, Bandi Atmakur P.S., filed charge sheet against them and four others for the offences under Section 498A and 494 read with 109 IPC, as well as under Section 494 IPC.3. As per the case of the prosecution - on 22-5-1998, A-1 was married to the de facto complainant, Annem Sarada; some dowry and silver articles were given; they lead marital life for about five years; thereafter some problems arose, as A-2, father of A-1 started misbehaving with the de facto complainant, his daughter-in-law. The complainant left the matrimonial home and started living with her mother after Sriramanavami festival in 2005. At the time of Dasara festival in 2005, A-1 beat the complainant in t...
S. Prabhavathi Vs. Rohini Kilaru and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD606; 2006(5)ALT264
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of the related proceedings in the suit and the parties are also same. Hence, this common order. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed suit for injunction. In the suit being O.S. No. 1455 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge (West and South), Ranga Reddy District, she also filed LA. No. 3219 of 2004 for ad interim injunction. On 1 -12-2004, the trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction but subsequently, by order, dated 14-12-2004, the trial Court dismissed the application vacating the ex parte order. Sometime thereafter defendants also filed application being I.A. No. 685 of 2005 before trial Court under Sections 144 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking restoration of possession by removing illegal constructions allegedly made by the plaintiff after obtaining ad interim ex parte injunction. The same was allowed by the trial Court on 19-10-2005. The plaintiff file...
S. Yedukondalu Vs. District Collector, West Godavari District and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD619; 2006(5)ALT818
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners in all these matters are owners of agricultural lands in different villages of West Godavari District. They filed these writ petitions aggrieved by the action of the District Collector in issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), proposing to acquire the land for public purpose. In W.P. Nos. 14075, 14152 and 14233 of 2006, the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections under a Government Scheme known as Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas (popularized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Indiramma Scheme). In other two writ petitions, being W.P. Nos. 14260 and 14279 of 2006, the land is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections (not under Indiramma Scheme).2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions raised various grounds in cha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »