Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
G. Ramesh Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD136; 2006(6)ALT476
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A short but interesting question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is as to whether it is competent to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to impound improperly/inadequately stamped document under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Stamp Act, for brevity) and deal such important documents in accordance with Sections 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act.2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions entered into sale transactions under documents written on stamp papers worth Rs. 100/-. Such documents were executed by M/s. Southern Udyans Limited alienating certain extents of lands in Survey Nos.305 and 309 of Lingotham Village, Narkatpalli Mandal in Nalgonda District (in the first writ petition) and in Survey Nos.198, 199, 207 and 208 in Yellareddigudem Village in Narkatpalli Mandal of Nalgonda District (in the second writ petition). As the documents are improperly stamped and they cannot be received as evidence in a Court of law, the peti...
Kollareddy Venu Gopala Swamy Reddy, S/O Late K. Ch. Narayana Reddy Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD294
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P. Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent- Municipality, and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, representing the respondents 2 to 4.2. Sri P. Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8891 of 2001 and would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent-Municipality in the said writ petition, contrary stand cannot be taken in the present writ petition. The learned Counsel also would submit that unnecessarily the writ petitioner was driven to unconcerned authorities and because of certain orders made in thi...
Lachapeta Ramalaxmi (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Lachapeta Balanarsaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD595
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 24 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, filed this second appeal. They filed the suit, against the defendants, for partition of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through the judgment, dated 5-6-2000. Thereupon, they filed A.S. No. 42 of 2000 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Medak at Sangareddy. The appeal was dismissed on 30-6-2001. Hence, this second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The first plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The parties to the proceedings represent three branches of the family represented by the sons of late Balaiah. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and defendants 7 and 8 are the daughters of one Sri Gundaiah, eldest son of Balaiah. Defendant No. 6 is the wife of defendant No. 2. The husband of the first plaintiff and first defendant are the sons ...
Maruthi Constructions Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST362(AP)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the constitutionality of Sub-section (4) of Section 5G of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereafter referred as 'the Act').2. Section 5G of the Act was inserted by Act No. 22 of 1995 with effect from April 1, 1995 and later was substituted by Act No. 27 of 1996 with effect from August 1,1996. Sub-section (4) came to be added to Section 5G by Act No. 25 of 2002 with effect from February 15, 2003.3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 8853 of 2006 are taken as representative facts in these two writ petitions.4. The petitioner is carrying on business as a works contractor like laying roads, etc. These contracts were awarded to the petitioner by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the process of executing such contracts, any contractor, like the petitioner, is necessarily required to use materials (goods); whether the goods so used in the execution of a contract, could be the subject-matter of tax, on the ...
Butha Prasad Vs. Shaik Jafifulla and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1428; 2006(6)ALT426
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The claimant/appellant in M.V.O.P. No. 553/95 on the file of I Additional District Jude, Guntur preferred the Appeal C.M.A. No. 2170/99 praying for enhancement of compensation. Likewise, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2nd respondent in the aforesaid O.P. preferred C.M.A. No. 2597/2000 questioning awarding of compensation on the ground that the same is excessive. However, it is needless to say that in the light of the provisions of Sections 173 and 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also in view of the decisions National Insurance Co. Limited., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 , Chinnamma George and Ors. v. N.K. Raju and Anr. : [2000]2SCR1050 and Jagdish Prasad Pandey v. Darshan Singh and Anr. (2000) 9 SCC 527 the Insurance Company is not entitled to maintain an Appeal unless the conditions as specified under Section 173 read along with Section 149(2) of the Act aforesaid are satisfied.2. Coming to the facts of the case,...
Beeravalli Sreeramabhaktha Reddy Vs. Manukonda Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD281; 2006(6)ALT643
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, through which the E.P. filed by the petitioner was closed by recording full satisfaction.2. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P. No. 705 of 1996 before the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guntur, against the respondent herein. The O.P. was allowed through order dated 27-10-2000 awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, with interest at 12% per annum. Alleging that the obligation under the decree passed in the O.P. was not discharged by the respondent, the petitioner filed E.P.No. 95 of 2000. The petitioner sought for arrest of the respondent, alleging that in spite of possessing sufficient means, he has not chosen to comply with the decree.3. The respondent, on the other hand, filed E.A.No. 44 of 2001 under Rule 15 of Order 21, read with Section 151 C.P.C., to record full satisfaction. He pleaded that on receipt ...
Mallannagari Mallareddy and anr. Vs. Mallannagari Susheela and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD485; 2006(6)ALT733
P.S. Narayana, J.1. These two second appeals are filed as against the judgment and decree made in AS No. 30 of 1988, dated 16-6-1994 on the file of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appellants in AS No. 30 of 1988 aforesaid had preferred Second Appeal No. 456 of 1994 aggrieved by the relief granted substantially confirming the findings of the Court of first instance made in OS No. 123 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Kamareddy, and the plaintiffs being aggrieved of partly reversing certain findings of the Court of first instance preferred Second Appeal No. 22 of 1996 in particular questioning negativing of the relief in relation to the plaint 'B' schedule property.2. On 28-9-1994 this Court made the following order:Admit. Ground Nos. a, b, c are the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.The said grounds a, b, c read as hereunder:(a) Whether a document (Ex.A5) the recitals of which speak of a transfer inter vivos can be treated as a 'Will' ?(b) Whether the pro...
The Oriential Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager/A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD472
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Fourth respondent in O.P. No. 1974 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 8-7-2004 passed in the said O.P.2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter respectively of late N. Ashok. They filed the O.P. stating that N. Ashok and P. Srinivas were traveling in an Auto Trolley, bearing No. AP9T 7348, owned by the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent, on 9-7-1994 and at about 11- 20 PM, one K. Mutyalu, Driver of the vehicle, dashed against the Stationery Lorry, bearing No. AAT 6997, owned by the fifth respondent herein and insured with the appellant. All the three persons are said to have died, on account of the injuries. According to them, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Trolley and reckless parking of the lorry. by its driver. They clai...
Srikantam Talkies Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD48; (2007)IILLJ201AP
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals are presented under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, for short 'the Act', by a cinema establishment viz., Srikantam Talkies, Kamalanagar, Anantapur. In both the appeals, the dispute is about the very applicability of the provisions of the Act, to the appellant. While C.M.A. No. 633 of 2005 relates to the period between July 1991 and July 1999, C.M.A. No. 1275 of 2005 is in relation to the subsequent spell up to March, 2001.2. The appellant cinema theatre was established in the year 1963. The number of persons employed by it, was less than 20. Attendance registers were being maintained by it. It is stated that the maintenance of cycle stand and canteen in the theatre was leased to third parties, and that it has nothing to do with the employees engaged therein.3. The Inspector of the ESI Corporation visited the theatre on 23-7-1991. At that time, the Attendance Register contained 11 names. At his instance, fo...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Pollagoni Venkanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2198; 2007(1)ALD177; 2006(6)ALT806
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard Sri C.P. Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. C. Jayashree Sarathy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri P. Harinatha Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, in both the civil miscellaneous appeals.2. Since both the civil miscellaneous appeals are inter-related and the accident being one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 31-7-1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for brevity 'the Tribunal No. 1') allowing O.P. No. 250 of 1995, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the M.V. Act'), and awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners therein, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »