Andhra Pradesh Court January 2007 Judgments
Hindustan Lever Limited, Represented by Its Chairman, Mr. Banga Vs. St ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2102
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This matter has come up before this Court on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to consider the question:Whether the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the court taking cognizance of the offence is relevant for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. The question of law involved in this case, though short one, has been the subject of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 27 (SC).3. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by this Court in Crl.P. No. 3572/2003 wherein it was held that the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate is relevant and not the date of filing of the complaint before the court for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Hence made the reference. 4. In order to appreciate the question arising for determination, facts-in-brief may be stated...
Tag this Judgment!Munnalal (Died) and ors. Vs. Englarg Pershad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD149; 2007(4)ALT49
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. This is a revision filed by the tenants against an order of eviction dated 29- 06-2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 326 of 2002. 2. The landlord filed an eviction petition being R.C. No. 306 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on various grounds and it was dismissed by order dated 11th September, 2002. In appeal, the order was reversed and eviction was ordered on the ground of willful default. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants preferred the present revision petition.3. The only question agitated before this Court is that there had been no willful default by the tenants and the rents had been deposited regularly and intimation of deposit of rents had also been given to the landlord in terms of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules').4. The learned Rent Controller observed that the case of the landlord was that the tenants had...
Tag this Judgment!J. Shiv Kumar and anr. Vs. P. Sattamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD580; 2007(3)ALT111
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. On four grounds, the eviction petition R.C. No. 207 of 2002 was filed by the landlady/respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act'). First petitioner is the tenant of the landlady. It was alleged by the landlady that the first petitioner sub-let the premises to the second petitioner. The grounds, on which the eviction petition was filed, are-(1) that the tenant had obtained alternative accommodation;(2) that he was creating nuisance;(3) that the landlady needed the schedule premises for her personal requirement and (4) that the tenant had sublet the schedule premises to the second petitioner.2. The Rent Controller accepted the grounds of subletting, bona fide requirement of the schedule premises by the landlady and also securing alternative accommodation by the tenant and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.A. No. 118 of 2004. The landlady al...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sudhershan Vs. K. Ashok Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD204
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit being O.S. No. 315 of 2004. This revision is filed against an order passed by the learned III-Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad allowing LA. No. 1597 of 2005 filed in O.S. No. 315 of 2004. The application was filed under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed on 6-10-2002. A leave was also sought to defend the suit.2. It appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,82,500/-. In terms of Order 37 of CPC, the defendant received summons under Form No. 4 in Appendix-B on 27-2-2004 and he filed an application for grant of leave to defend the suit. The leave application was withdrawn reserving the right to file such application at appropriate time. The defendant neither appeared nor filed written statement and the suit was decreed in ex parte on 6-10-2005. ...
Tag this Judgment!T.D. Janardhan Rao Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD221; 2007(3)ALT780
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner functioned as President of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank, (for short 'the Bank') for the term between 1995-2000. The District Collector, Krishna, the 2nd respondent herein, caused an enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), into the affairs of the bank during the said term. The 3rd respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report, dated 25.5.2005, pointing out certain irregularities that were said to have taken place, when the petitioner functioned as President. At the instance of the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act. The notice issued by the 4th respondent is challenged in the writ petition, on several grounds.2. Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 4th respondent was not authorised by the 2nd respondent, as required unde...
Tag this Judgment!Kuna Lingaiah Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD741; 2007(4)ALT227
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 11.00 of land in Survey No. 14 of Ummapur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under a registered sale deed, dated 11.12.1972 from one Mr. Tajuddin. Thereafter, he approached the then Tahsildar, Achampet, for mutation of his name, in the concerned revenue records. Mutation was effected in the records pertaining to the year 1985-86.2. Respondents 3 and 4, the brothers of the vendor of the petitioner, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, the first respondent herein, under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The appeal was dismissed on 21.3.1996. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 and 4 filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the second respondent.3. The petitioner contends that he derived title under the sale deed of the year 1972 and mutation in the revenue records is only a matter of course. He contends tha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shobha Kailash Bonekar Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonme ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP23; AIR2008Bom23(FB)
H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 is filed by a teacher working in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board at Ahmednagar. The respondent No. 3 to the said writ petition is another teacher working in the said school and claims to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Cantonment Board. That order was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing Appeal No. 20 of 2005 before the School Tribunal at Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, ''MEPS Act'). The School Tribunal allowed that appeal by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2006 and set aside the order promoting the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the said order of the School Tribunal.2. The connected Writ Petition No. 3403 of 2006 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar, to challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Moazam Khan and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD585; 2008(4)ALT443
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the proposed inclusion of L.B. Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Uppal Kalan, Kapra, Alwal, Qutubullapur, Malkajgiri, Kukatpally, Serilingampalli, Rajendernagar, Patancheru and Ramachandrapuram Municipalities and Shamshabad, Mamidipalli, Satamarai, Jalapally, Mankhal, Almasguda/Tukkuguda, Sardarnagar and Ravarala Gram Panchayats located around Hyderabad in the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for the purpose of constituting Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 243E, 243P, 243Q, 243U, 243ZF and 371D of the Constitution of India and violative of Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 is the common question of law, which arises for determination in these petitions filed for striking down Sections 3 and 679-D of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') and notifications issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.Nos.703 and 704, Municipal Administration an...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Enterprises, Rep. by Its Managing Partner M. Srinivasa Rao S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ500(AP); [2007]78SCL346(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This is an application filed by the applicant, who is a third party, seeking a direction to the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the Flat bearing No.804, VIII Floor, Paigah Plaza, Basheer Bagh, admeasuring 2069 sq.ft. to the applicant and to pass such other orders.2. According to the applicant, it is a Firm represented by its Managing Partner M. Srinivasa Rao. It is a creditor of the Company, viz. M/s. Nirup Synchrome Limited, represented by its liquidator, the Official Liquidator, attached to this Court. It was the case of the applicant that the applicant Firm was in possession of the property in question since 31.07.2000. On 01.11.2000 the officials of the Official Liquidator have locked and sealed the premises. Thereafter, the applicant Firm had approached the respondent enquiring about such action. Then the applicant Firm was informed by the office of the Official Liquidator that as per their records, the premises belongs to M/s. Nirup S...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Shah Mohammed Raju Hussaini Sani Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Bo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD345; 2007(2)ALT511
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The father of the petitioner was recognized as mutawalli of a wakf known as Dargah Hazrath Syed Shah Raju Qattal Hussaini, Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. He is said to have died in the year 1972. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, the first respondent herein, to recognize him as mutawalli. The request of the petitioner was acceded to. He was so recognized in the year 1975. He appointed his son as Naib Mutawalli in the year 2005 and the said appointment was recognized by the first respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, dated 07-12-2006, passed by the first respondent, appointing the second respondent as a joint mutawalli.2. The petitioner contends that his father alone was recognized as mutawalli of the wakf and that there is neither any factual, nor legal basis for the first respondent to appoint the second respondent as joint mutawalli. He further contends that the impugned order is not traceable to the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »