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.
B. Vandana Kumari Vs. P. Praveen Kumar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP17; 2006(6)ALD548; 2007(1)ALT193; I(2007)DMC246
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 7-9-2004 in IA. No. 671 of 2004 in O.P. No. 720 of 2002 under which the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, directed the revision petitioner to subject herself to DNA Test along with her daughter at Centre for D.N.A., Finger Print and Diagnostics, E.C.I.L. Road, Nizamabad.2. The facts, in brief, are as under:The marriage between the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the wife) and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the husband) was performed on 23-5-2002 as per Hindu rites and customs at Nizamabad. On 16-9-2002, the husband filed O.P. No. 720 of 2002 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') to declare the marriage as null and void on the ground that the wife was pregnant by some other person at the time of marriage. It is alleged that their marriage was not consummated at all and on 31-5-2002 when he along wi...
Padala Harinath Reddy Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP109; 2007(1)ALD357; 2007(4)ALT672
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, the Counsel representing appellant and Sri Sreeramulu Reddy, the Counsel representing respondent.2. This Court on 21-5-1996 made the following order:Admit in view of substantial questions of law especially the one relating to limitation.3. Sri Siva Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellant would submit that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration is 'whether the Courts below had arrived at correct conclusion on the question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?' The learned Counsel pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court and would contend that if the period from the date of the appellate order - Ex.A.11 to be reckoned with, the same is beyond the period of limitation.4. On the contrary, the learned Counsel representing respondent would cont...
Kareddy Manyamma Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD442; 2007(4)ALT659
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Second respondent filed a declaration under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (the Act). Initially he was found to be holding 1.1130 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. After several appeals and revisions ultimately his holding was held to be 0.1822 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area. During the course of surrender proceedings also he raised several objections and ultimately, sine he failed to file a surrender statement, the Tribunal selected the lands for surrender and passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act on 4-11-1988. Thereupon revision petitioners filed an appeal LRA No. 2/89 contending that she is the first wife of the second respondent and that her father-in-law gave her Ac. 21-23 guntas of land, from out of the land proposed to be taken in surrender, towards her maintenance at the time of the second marriage of the second respondent and had also executed ...
Sana Vijaya Vs. Kannaboina Shankar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1055; 2007(1)ALD819; 2007(4)ALT675
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the claimants against the common order dated 27-7-2000 in O.P. Nos. 261, 262, 263 and 291 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Karimnagar, raising only one question whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the vehicle.2. The lower Court awarded compensation to the claimants after considering the merits of the respective cases and did not make the Insurance Company i.e., fourth respondent herein, liable to pay compensation on the ground that the Insurance Policy was obtained in the name of the third respondent and the ownership was with the second respondent as on the date of accident.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gowramma : AIR1994Kant29 , wherein the Court held that:The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the ownership of the vehicle is trans...
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Puligurthi Kumar Swamy and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC79; 2007(1)ALT441
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 17-4-2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), partly allowing the petition M.O.P. No. 376 of 2000, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarding a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of one Puligurthi Syama Sunder, (for brevity 'the deceased') in a road accident that occurred on 20-5-2000; while the cross objections are filed by the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, seeking enhancement in the compensation.3. Appellants are the officials of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the respondents are the claimants, in the said O.P., before the Tribunal.4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellants and the respondents will be referred to as 'the Corporation' and 'the claimant...
K. Pavan Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD133
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting on production of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Committee constituted by the Government for this purpose for receiving the application in Form Appendix-A under Section 428 of Municipal Corporation Act read with Bye-Law No. 3.2 of the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1981 submitted by the petitioner to erect a building in premises bearing D.No.l2-7-107/3/2/B, Malkajgiri New, Mettuguda, Secunderabad, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court and consequently direct the respondents to receive the said building application of the petitioner and grant building permission without insisting No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Committee constituted by the Government for the said purpose and pass such other suitable orders.3. It is stated that one Abdul Aziz Khan was the pattadar of various e...
In Re: Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Chief Minister of A.P. and Sri K. K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT109
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate General, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 1 and Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 2.2. Show Cause Notices were issued by this Court on 4-8-2006 whereunderthis Court had stated as hereunder:1. An unfortunate, unprecedented, novel situation arose in State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Press reported and there was telecast too, of certain controversial statements threatening and derogatory, said to have been made about judicial verdict and also judiciary by both Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Sri K. Keshav Rao, the Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh. Judge is a public office. Judge is accountable to public. Judge is expected to discharge his duties as per the oath administered to him and taken, and as per the provisions of the Constitution of India. Confidence of public a...
Deekonda Suresh Vs. D. Dharmaraju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ977; 2007(1)ALD710; 2007(4)ALT704
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. As the point involved in all the revisions is the same, these revisions are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts are that all the petitioners are injured in an accident occurred on account of collision between two vehicles i.e. a jeep bearing No. AP25G-4649 and a lorry. It appears that the driver of the lorry, who was responsible for the said accident, sped away immediately after the accident and the police after due investigation, filed a report stating that it is a hit and run case and the said accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, but not on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep. The petitioners in all these revision petitions invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by them in the aforesaid accident. Subsequently, the sa...
Nallamsetti Veerraghavulu Vs. Sangisetti Ramalakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD821; 2007(4)ALT696
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of Ac.1.08 cents of land in R.S. No. 234/2 of Ramavaram Village, owned by the respondent. The tenancy is said to have commenced in the year 1989, on the basis of an oral transaction. While, according to the petitioner the rent for the land was Rs. 600/- per annum, payable on or before Telugu New Year, according to the respondent, it was 8 quintals of jaggery to be tendered by the end of March, every year.2. The respondent filed A.T.C. No. 22 of 1992 before the Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that the latter committed default in payment of rent. He has also filed O.S. No. 87 of 1992 in the same Court, for recovery of rent for the years 1989 to 1992. A.T.C. and suit were dismissed on 25-3-1996. A.S. No. 22 of 1996 filed against the decree in the suit was also dismissed, on 23-3-2004.3. Subsequently, the respondent filed A.T.C. No. 31 of 1996 i...
Apsrtc and anr. Vs. Changantipati Venkateshwaramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD708; 2007(4)ALT662
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Sri Chagantipati Venkateswara Rao, was employed as Head Constable, and was working in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. On 13-5-1995, when he was proceeding on his Moped (Lune), bearing No. AP-16-8456 from Bandar Locks to Krishnalanka Police Station, a bus bearing No. AP-9Z 3591, owned by the APSRTC, is said to have hit the Moped from behind. Venkateswara Rao died on account of the injuries received by him. Crime No. 34 of 1995 was registered against the driver of the bus, by the II Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. The wife and three minor children of late Venkateswra Rao filed M.V.O.P. No. 297 of 1995 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-claim-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as compensation. Through its order dated 17-10-2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,93,824/-, and apportioned the same among the respondents/claimants.2. APSRTC, the appellant, filed this appeal, assailing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »