Andhra Pradesh Court January 2007 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.
Y. Jyothirmoy and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD533; 2007(2)ALT410
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. The petitioners, who purchased different portions of the building known as Amrutha Business Complex, Ameerpet have filed this petition for quashing notice dated 22-8-2006 issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') requiring them to demolish/remove/pull down the unauthorised construction not covered by the Sectioned plan within 24 hours of the date of receipt of the notice with the threat that if they fail to do so, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short, 'the Corporation') will take action and demolish/pull down such construction and also recover expenditure from them.2. The background facts:(i) Sri Y.S. Rajesh Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, son of Dr. K.L. Reddy, Ms. K. Sunitha Reddy, daughter of Dr. K.L. Reddy and Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Konda Reddy purchased...
South Central Railway and ors. Vs. Mutha NavIn Krishna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD726
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 9-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby she allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and quashed order dated 31-3-2006 passed by Estate Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Estate Officer') under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the 1971 Act').2. A perusal of the record shows that by claiming themselves to be the owners of land comprised in Town Survey No. 1961/1, Ward No. 2, Block No. 42 of Kakinada Town, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2006 against their threatened dispossession. The same was disposed of by this Court on 27-1-2006 with the direction that the non-petitioners (the appellants herein) shall not interfere or dispossess the petitioners (the respondents herein) from the land comprised in Town Survey No. 1961/1 of Kakinada Town and Municipal Corp...
Kura Rajaiah @ K. Rajanna @ K.R. and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALT346; 2007CriLJ2031
J. Chelameswar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by five petitioners with the prayer as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction more in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court and set them at liberty and pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.2. There are fifteen respondents who are officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Police Department. The 1st petitioner claims to be the General Secretary of a political party known as CPI (ML) Janashakti party. The others are the followers of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the natives of Andhra Pradesh, 4th and 5th petitioners are claimed to be the residents of Mumbai and Ranipur in Uttar Pradesh respectively. Admittedly all the...
Sukandraj JaIn Vs. Ram Singh (Died) Per L.Rs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD147; 2007(2)ALT472
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The appellate Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and also on bona fide requirement of one of the respondents in appeal. On the ground of securing additional accommodation and on the ground of nuisance and waste, the appellate Court did not agree with the Rent Controller, Hence, this revision is filed by the tenant.2. The petitioner/tenant contends that the Courts below have erred in law in holding that he was a wilful defaulter as he had sent the rent for the month of April, 2000 under Ex.R-4 money order and the same was returned with postal endorsement 'refused'. On bona fide requirement, the petitioner contends that admittedly one of the mulgies had fallen back which the landlords had let to an auto mechanic and if really P.W.1 (respondent No. 4 in the appeal) was in need of any of the mulgies he would have occupied the same and therefore, it was clear that P.W.1 was not in nee...
Pediredla Lakshminarayana Alias Mandonarayana Vs. Pediredla Simhachala ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD372
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, filed the present appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment made by the learned Judge, dated 29.07.1988, dismissing the suit with costs and directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee on the plaint.2. The suit was instituted as an indigent person praying for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties, delivery of possession, future profits and the other reliefs.3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, D.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.A1 to A7, Exs.B1 to B16 and Ex.C1 and came to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and ultimately, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.4. Heard the learned Counsel on record and perused the oral and document...
K. Raja Gopal Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Deputy Secreta ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALT691
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner in relation to his claim for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short, 'the 1980 Scheme'). Writ Petition No. 22848 of 2004 filed by him for quashing the rejection of his application by respondent No. 1 vide letter No. 112/6087/97-FF(HC), dated 25-6-2002 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 16-6-2005 by directing the said respondent to re-consider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate order within two months. Contempt Case No. 1462 of 2005 filed by the petitioner with the allegation of non-compliance of order dated 16-6-2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge because, in the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 again rejected his claim for pension.The Facts:(1) The petitioner claims that he had participated in the freedom movement for merger of the erstwhile Hyderabad State into the Indian Union during the years 1947 and 1948. As a consequence of thi...
B. Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs. G.V. Subba Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD525; 2007(3)ALT727
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order made in IA No. 289 of 2005 in OS No. 225 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, dated 25th October, 2005.2. Appellant herein petitioner-plaintiff filed the aforesaid application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)(hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for want of representation on 1-8-2005. Respondent-defendant resisted the application and the learned Judge, after recording certain reasons, arrived at a conclusion that there are no grounds to allow the application and accordingly dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred.3. Smt. Ramani Jonna, learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff made the following submissions:The learned Counsel would contend that the dismissal...
Kishan Chand Yadav Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD638
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for striking down Rule 4(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admission into MBA/MCA Professional Courses Through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2006 (for short, 'the Rules') and also for issue of a mandamus to the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education (for short, 'the State Council') to recognise his admission to MBA course.2. A perusal of the record shows that after securing the degree of B.Com. from Osmania University, Hyderabad, the petitioner appeared in the entrance test held in furtherance of the notice issued by the State Government for admission to M.B.A. course for the academic year 2006-07. He was declared successful in the test and, on that basis, was admitted in Aurora Post-Graduate College, Ramanthapur, and Hyderabad (for short, 'the college') in Category 'B' seats. However, when the list of candidates admitted in the college was forwarded to the State Council, the latter declined to recognise th...
Durga Subrahmanyameswara and Co. Vs. Siripurapu Sankaraiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD679
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment made in O.S. No. 3 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,825/-. The suit was resisted. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 3 had been recorded and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons, ultimately dismissed the suit observing that the suit is dismissed on a technical ground and hence, the parties to bear their costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.3. Sri M.Y.K. Raidu, learned Counsel representing Sri P. Raja Rao, the learned Counsel for appellant-plaintiff, had brought to the notice of this Court that C.M.P. No. 824 of 1991 was filed praying for reception of the certified copy of the Certificate of Registration under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act') issued by t...
Pallerla Venkateswarlu Vs. Vootkuri Bixamaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD16; 2007(2)ALT470
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No.144 of 2006 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against the respondents, for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to him, the suit schedule property was purchased under a document, dated 19-11-1996 and when he was proceeding with the construction after obtaining permission from the Municipality, the respondents started interfering with the same on 23-3-2006. He also filed I.A.No.378 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. intially, and order of temporary injunction was passed on 24-3-2006 and after contest by the respondents, it was made absolute on 2-8-2006. Complaining that the respondents, continued to interfere with the construction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.527 of 2006 for grant of police-aid and the I.A. was ordered on 7-10-2006.2. The respondents filed I.A. (SR) No. 3082 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. with a prayer to modify the order of temporary injunction. It was dis...