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.
C. Manohar Reddy and ors. Vs. Alopi Shanker and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD496; 2007(3)ALT40
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. As these two appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 409 of 1988, dated 9-9-1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, we consider it expedient to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common judgment.2. A.S. No. 2860 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the refusal to grant decree for specific performance and A.S. No. 672 of 1997 is filed by the defendants aggrieved by a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards development charges with interest thereon at 18% per annum.3. The parties to these two appeals will hereinafter be referred in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendants, for the purpose of convenience.4. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals in brief, are as follows:The defendants 1 to 5 are brothers and they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 2-10-1987 with the plaintiffs who are relatives and friends...
Economic Transport Organisation Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD496
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of money. During the course of evidence, respondents filed a petition purportedly under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to receive a true copy of the letter of subrogation executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff dated 8-8-1997. Rejecting the objection of the revision petitioner, the trial Court allowed that petition by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court without keeping in view the fact that an insurer cannot without obtaining assignment from the insured file a suit against 3rd party for recovery of the money, erroneously allowed the petition, when the existence of the document sought to be received was not even mentioned during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses of the revision petitioner. It is his cont...
Kalavacherla Bala Tripura Sundaramma and ors. Vs. Rachuri Subbarayudu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD339
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Defendants 14 to 18 and 20 to 26 in a suit for partition filed by respondents 1 to 7 as indigent persons are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the great grandsons of Rachuri Swamy who had a son by name Subbarayudu whose son is Gangaraju i.e. the 1st defendant and was married to the 2nd defendant. They begot plaintiffs 1 to 5 and three daughters from out of their wedlock. Properties specified in the plaint 'A' schedule which belonged to Rachuri Swamy devolved on his son Subbarayudu and thereafter on the first defendant. As first defendant was addicted to vices and was contracting debts for that purpose, he nominally executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule properties in the name of his wife, the 2nd defendant and so the said gift deed is void. 2nd defendant, in pursuance of ...
Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju and anr. Vs. Commissioner, State Elect ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD626; 2006(6)ALT29
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These writ petitions are appearing in the list under the caption 'interlocutory'. At the request of the Counsel on record, both the writ petitions are being disposed of finally.2. On 4.8.2006 this Court issued Rule Nisi and granted interim stay for a limited period of two weeks and subsequent thereto the same is being extended from time to time. Counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 in both these writ petitions.3. Writ Petition No. 16149 of 2006 is filed praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the unanimous election of the 7th respondent as Sarpanch as illegal, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct the election for Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vendra Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District and pass such other suitable orders.4. Writ Petition No. 16155 of 2006 is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the unanimous election of the respondents 10 to 21 as ward membe...
G. Jaisurya Vs. Harishanker Sanghi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD13; 2006(6)ALT61
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-2-2003 passed in R.A.No. 249 of 1997 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.2. Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants in R.C.No. 266 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and for the purpose of bona fide commencement of business under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for short 'the Act.3. Initially the learned Rent Controller allowed the said eviction petition by order dated 9-6-1997 on the ground that the claim of permanent tenancy by the tenants is not bona fide and therefore, they are liable to be evicted on the ground mala fide claim of perpetual lease. Against the said order the tenants preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 249 o...
Golconda Educational Society Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD121
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-General assisting Sri Satya Prasad, advocate for respondents 1 to 4.2. The petitioner impeaches the notification No. C/123/2005 dated 21.4.2005 issued in the Gazettee dated 21.4.2005 as ORR No. 89 purporting to be a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing acquisition of an extent of Acs. 1.50 cents of land of the petitioner situate in Sy. No. 284, Vatti Nagulapalli Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Appropriate consequential relief in respect of this grievance is sought in the writ petition apart from invalidation of the notification.3. The undisputed factual matrix of the case is: the petitioner is an educational society registered under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, established for promoting graduate and post graduation education, in particular, for the benefit and in the interest of...
Sri Krishna Pulverising Mills, Rep. by Its Managing Partner and anr. V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ409AP
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed praying to quash the additional charge framed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, to try the offences under the ESI Act and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in P.C. No. 60 of 2003 against the petitioners under Section 85(1)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), vide order dated 21.09.2005.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioner No. 2 representing petitioner No. 1-Mill has not paid the employer's contribution amounting to Rs. 13,354/- for the period from 01.04.2001 to 30.09.2001, which he was liable to pay under the Act, the offence under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act alone is attracted, and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class has rightly framed charge under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act, he however, committed a gross error in framing additional charge under Section 85(1)(a) of the ESI Act, and more so when there was...
G.V. Krishnaiah S/O. Venkata Ramaiah Vs. the Yemmiganur Weavers Cooper ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD360; 2007(3)ALT379
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 473 of 2001 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the petitioner for a decree for damages. The basis of the suit is said to be the lease deed between the parties. The suit was decreed on 8-5-2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 46 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 702 of 2004 under Order 41, Rule 25, read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to frame two additional issues. The said application was opposed by the respondent. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. through its order dated 29-6-2005. Hence the revision petition.3. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity for the petitioner to file the I.A. arose on account of the fact that an important factual aspect could not be dealt with by the trial Court and the framing of...
B. Rama Krishna and anr. Vs. M. Naga Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD148
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents 1 to 3 obtained a decree of perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners and others. Questioning the said decree, revision petitioners and 5th respondent preferred A.S. No. 16 of 2005 to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. But stay of operation of the decree under appeal was not granted therein.2. Alleging that revision petitioners and others in spite of the decree of injunction against them are trying to interfere with their possession over and are trying to dispossess them from the plaint schedule property through hired gundas, respondents 1 to 3 filed LA. No. 193 of 2006 seeking a direction to the Police, Puttaparthy Urban, to provide police protection to them. The trial Court, by the order impugned in this revision, granted police protection to respondents 1 to 3. Questioning the said order this revision is preferred.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that earlier when respondents...
C. Srinivas Himavant Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: II(2008)BC547
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1012 of 2004 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The allegations in the complaint are that in pursuance of Joint Venture Agreement, the complainant paid Rs. 47 lakh to the accused. But the accused committed breach of promise and, hence, the complainant lodged a complaint, In pursuance of the compromise, the accused is said to have issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lakh on 12.1.2004, When it was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement funds insufficient. After giving statutory legal notice, complaint is filed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the de facto complainant lodged a report on 6.1.2004 in FIR No. 12 of 2004 under Sections 420, 406 and 468, IPC and in pursuance of that, the petitioner was taken into...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »