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.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Tunik ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC810; 2007(2)ALD65
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The order dated 17-12-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in O.P. No. 594 of 2003 is assailed in this appeal.2. First respondent filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on 21-3-2003. She pleaded that the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle driven by one Erukla Kishan; with a view to go to Vemulawada and when they reached Nampally Bus stage, a vehicle bearing No. AP 15V 5656 (Toyota Qualis) owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from behind. The first respondent is said to have fallen down and sustained head injury. She was treated in a private hospital and it was pleaded that she incurred a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the treatment. Under different heads, she claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.3. The owner of the...
K. Shankar Vs. the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD302
ORDERC.V. Nagardjuna Reddy, J.1. The writ petition is filed partly aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani made in I.D. No. 23 of 1991, dated 18.03.1994, wherein the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court while totally agreeing with the finding of the guilt of the petitioner in respect of all the three charges held proved against him, it has granted the relief of directing appointment of petitioner as a fresh conductor without continuity of service and without any back wages and with a further direction that the petitioner shall work for a period of one year on a gross salary of 90%.2. It is needless to refer to the facts in the case for the reason that the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not join issue on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. All that the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends is that while directing issue of fresh appointment to the petitioner,...
S.M. Kantha Raju Vs. Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD385
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is the 5th respondent in the Court below in a dispute raised under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for brevity 'the Act') at the instance of the respondent herein seeks to assail by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders passed in I.A. No. 234 of 2004 in O.P. No. 13 of 2004, dated 17th January, 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting an application filed by him under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to decide the maintainability of the main petition in O.P. No. 13 of 2004 as a preliminary issue.2. Heard Sri M. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. Briefly stated facts are that in the petition filed under Section 23 of the said Act, the respondent herein who claiming to be one of the senior...
Kolanati Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Nizampatnam Mastan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD497
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two second appeals are filed by the same individuals, against the same respondents. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S. No. 299 of 1980 in the Court ofthe Principal District Munsif, Repalle against the appellants and the fifth respondent, for the relief of declaration, that they are entitled to remove the clay from the suit schedule property, for the purpose of making pots and for consequential injunction, restraining them from interfering with their right. They pleaded that they are potters by community and from the time of their ancestors, they are using the clay from the Government lands in Sy.Nos. 675, 676 and 671 of Nizampatnam Village of Guntur District. It was stated that on the representation made by the potters all over the State, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1076, dated 21.11.1970, directing that such of the land, from which the potters are removing the clay for making pots shall be entere...
Maddirala Babu Rao and anr. Vs. Mandluri Venkaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD372
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants 4 and 5 and Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent-plaintiff.2. This Court on 14.5.1996 made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial questions of law mentioned in Para 6 of the grounds mentioned. Notice.In Ground No. 6, a, b, c and d, the following substantial questions of law were raised in this second appeal, which are as hereunder:(a) In a suit for mandatory injunction for demolition and removal of the constructions of the defendant the plaintiff has to plea and prove the legal right of easement and in the absence of the same the relief of the mandatory injunction ought not to be granted.(b) Under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act the mandatory injunction for demolition of existing structures ought not to be granted when the plaintiff kept quite for number of years (vide judgment of the High Court of A.P. in the S.A. No. 400 of 1969, dat...
Gurram Sanjappa Vs. Gurram Pedda Thippaiah (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP112; 2007(1)ALD446; 2007(4)ALT683
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 16-8-2006 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law raised in Ground Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal:1. Whether the lower Appellate Court acted legally in confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court and granting a relief of declaration of the plaintiff's right of way even though all the owners of the pathway have not been impleaded as parties to the suit?2. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was using the suit rastha, whether the Courts below acted legally in holding that the plaintiff was using the suit rastha?3. Whether the lower appellate Court acted legally in partly decreeing the suit even though one of the owners of the property has not been impleaded as party to the suit?4. Whether the relief of permanent injunction is divisible andwhether the Court is justified in granting the relief of permanent injunction in respect of a portion of the def...
Waheedunnisa Begum (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hydera ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD564; 2007(4)ALT689
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These second appeals are filed by the same appellant and against, almost the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in Second Appeal No. 646 of 1994.2. The genesis of the dispute is as under:3. The sole appellant died and her legal representatives are brought on record. Respondents 1 and 2 are two Temples, through Idol and Deity; Respondent No. 3 is a Priest; Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are devotees of the said Temples; Respondent No. 8 is the A.P. Housing Board, and Respondent No. 9 is the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.4. The appellant is an allottee of City Improvement Board Quarters at Agahpura, where the Temples are also located. The 8th respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, in respect of the quarters, as well as the adjoining land. The 9th respondent accorded permission for undertaking construction in the open place also.5. The Responden...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tuniki and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ596
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, A.P. in O.P. No. 594 of 2003 is assailed in this appeal.2. The respondent No. 1 filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on 21.3.2003. She pleaded that the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle driven by one Erukla Kishan; with a view to go to Vemulawada and when they reached Nampally Bus Stage, a vehicle bearing No. AP 15-V 5656 (Toyota Qualis) owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from behind. Respondent No. 1 is said to have fallen down and sustained head injury. She was treated in a private hospital and it was pleaded that she incurred a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards the treatment. Under different heads, she claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.3. The owner of the ...
L.K. Prabhavathi Vs. K.V. Sree Rama Murthy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ66
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Whether a complaint made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') prior to arising of the cause of action is liable to be dismissed as premature is the question that arises for consideration in this appeal.2. The appeal by the de facto complainant is directed against the Judgment passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 134 of 1997 dated 24-4-2000 upholding the preliminary objection taken by the 1st respondent-accused that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is premature for non-compliance of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and hence not maintainable, and recording a finding on that basis that the 1st respondent-accused was not guilty of the offence and acquitting him of the same.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that for dishonouring of cheque dated 3-2-1997 issued by the accused to the appellant-complainant in discharge of amount borrowed from the app...
Banwarilal Kedia and anr. Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP121; 2007(1)ALD185; 2006(6)ALT646; [2007(4)JCR402(AP)]
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.2. This application CCCA. M.P. No. 136 of 2006 is filed under Order 41 Rule 19 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 27.7.2005, in C.C.C.A. M.P. No. 525 of 2005, passed by this Court restoring the appeal C.C.C.A. No. 36of 1995.3. The petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents are defendants Nos. 1 to 4 A.P. State Electricity Board in the suit O.S. No. 62 of 1981 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The Court below, decreed the suit in part, by judgment and decree, dated 16.7.1993, declaring that the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) deposited by the plaintiffs-Factory was sufficient towards pilferage of energy charges.6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »