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.
Dr. M. Thippe Swamy Vs. L. Lalitha Kumari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD720; 2007(1)ALT288
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In the general election held in the month of April 2004, the petitioner and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') filed their nominations for 141 Palamaner (SC) Assembly Constituency of Andhra Pradesh. While the petitioner contested on behalf of the Indian National Congress, the respondent represented the Telugu Desam Party. After following the notified schedule in the matter of filing, scrutiny and withdrawal of nominations, polling was held to the constituency on 26.4.2004. The petitioner secured 67, 124 votes, whereas the respondent got 67,861 votes. An independent candidate secured 3,029 votes. The respondent was declared as elected.2. The petitioner filed this Election Petition challenging the election of the respondent. He seeks declaration to the effect that the election of the respondent as Member of the Legislative Assembly representing 141 Palamaner (SC) Assembly Constituency is void. The petitioner states that the re...
V.K. Sekhar Vs. Indian Bank, Greamset Branch and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD778
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Auction Notice dated 16-1-2006 issued by the 1st respondent Bank proposing to sell the properties belonging to the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is arbitrary and illegal.2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner having availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank for establishment of a poultry farm, by mortgaging certain immovable properties as security, committed default in discharging the same and consequently the account was classified as non-performing asset. Thereafter, the respondents while invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Securitisation Act, 2002'), issued a notice dated 13-9-2005 under Section 13(2) calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due within 60 days. Since th...
Tatigari Durgaiah S/O. Lakshmaiah Vs. the State of A.P. the Rep. by Pu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ524
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1999 passed in S.C. No. 136 of 1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak whereby and where under the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused- Tatigari Durgaiah guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case in brief is:PW-3-T.Ushaiah and accused-Tatigari Durgaiah are residents of Bacharam village. On 3-2-1995, PW-3 along with his brother PW-2 went to his field to graze cattle. The accused also came to the field along with cattle. The accused allowed his cattle to graze in the field of PW-3. Thereupon, PW-3 asked the accused to drive the cattle away from his field to avoid fight between his cattle and the cattle of the accused. The accused allegedly got annoyed...
State of A.P. Vs. Prakash
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD133; 2007(1)ALT383
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The writ petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for declaring the judgment dated 28.6.2002 passed by the learned Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Hyderabad, in L.G.C. No. 53 of 1998 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said judgment. The State is the writ petitioner.2. The sole respondent herein filed the application in L.G.C. No. 53 of 1998 against the State for declaration that he was the owner of the land in dispute and for directing the State to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the same. The case of the applicant concisely was that the land in dispute admeasuring 358 square yards covered by Plot No. 6 is a part of bungalow No. 146/A situate at Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad, in the layout of the Hyderabad Displaced Persons Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, 'the Society') was purchased from Sr...
Abdul Fayaz and anr. Vs. Babaiah (Died) by Lrs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD166; 2007(4)ALT687
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 12-6-2006 passed in O.S. No. 43 of 1999 by which the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banswada, while recalling the order passed in I.A. No. 97 of 2005, dated 21-2-2006, directed to return the amended plaint to the plaintiffs i.e., the petitioners herein.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, are the absolute owners of the land in Plot No. 51 situated in Pitlam Village and as there was threat of dispossession by the respondents herein, they approached the Court below and filed O.S. No. 43 of 1999 for perpetual injunction along with an application in I.A. No. 139 of 1999 seeking temporary injunction. After hearing both sides, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banswada, dismissed the application on 29-12-1999. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners filed I.A. No. 26 of 2000 seeking amendment of the plaint, but it was dismissed as not pressed. While the matter stood thu...
Kasturi Brothers Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD481
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These matters though appearing under the caption 'Interlocutory', at the request of the Counsel on record the matters are being finally disposed of.2. These writ petitions are filed by different writ petitioners as against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Ors. and in several of the writ petitions, the 3rd respondent is Nest Enterprises Private Limited and in a couple of writ petitions the said Nest Enterprises Private Limited is shown as 1st respondent. The factual matrix and the questions of law involved in all these matters being the same and further in view of the fact that common counter-affidavit is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, all these matters are being disposed of by this Common Order.3. In all these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners had prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name board/ board frames fixed by the respective petitioners as being covered by Sections...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Financ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD312
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These three writ petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order since the questions of fact and the questions of law involved being common.2. These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners questioning the demand notices issued by the respondent on several grounds. In W.P. No. 21813/2001 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the notice dated 20-8-2001 was questioned. It is stated that the petitioner-National Insurance Company Limited has been established under the Companies Act 1956 and is a statutory body established by the Union of India and it is a sister organisation of General Insurance Company. The main object of the petitioner-Company is to cover the risk and give redressal by way of payment of compensation to the insured and to the third parties. The petitioner-Company is not intended to do business with people and it is not meant for any commercial business. It is also stated that the petitioner-Company is a Regional Offic...
Kollam Padma Latha (Dr.) Vs. Kollam Chandra Sekhar (Dr.)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD598; 2007(1)ALT177
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant, Dr. KollamPadma Latha, against the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1 of 1999 and 203 of 2000 dated 29-8-2002 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.2. O.P. No. 1 of 1999 was filed by Dr. Kollam Padma Latha(hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') against her husband Dr. Kollam Chandrasekhar (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') and Rule 6(f) of the Rules for restitution of conjugal rights where as O.P.No. 203 of 2000 was filed by the respondent against the appellant under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for divorce. Both the O.Ps. were disposed of by a common order dated 29-8-2002.3. The facts in brief and relevant to decide the appeal as per the appellant are as under:(i) The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 31-5-1995 at Kakinada as per Hindu Rites and the appellant joined the respondent and thei...
B. Harikishan Rao Vs. A. Venkatesham
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD37; 2007(2)ALT616
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 in O.S.No. 25 of 2005 as well as the consequential orders dated 27-6-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 25 of 2005, by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.2. The brief facts that are required for disposal of this revision are as follows:- The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant. The respondent instituted a suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramareddy basing on a promissory note. It is stated that on 12-6-2006 after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the Court below adjourned the matter to 14-6-2006 for evidence of the defendant. On that day as the petitioner was not doing well, he sought an adjournment and also filed an applicati...
All India Trade Union Congress, Visakha District Council, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD565; 2007(2)ALT679
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the doctrine of public trust can be invoked by the Court for nullifying the decision taken by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short 'VUDA') to utilize 50 acres of land situated in Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam for a mega housing project in collaboration with private party is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by All India Trade Union Congress in the form of public interest litigation.2. The facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned question, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties and documents produced by them are as under:(i) Vide G.O. Ms. No. 912, MA, dated 9-11-1987, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded administrative sanction for development of Satellite Townships in the areas falling within the jurisdiction of certain urban development authorities. On the same day, the State Government issued another order i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 913, MA and l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »