Andhra Pradesh Court October 2007 Judgments
S. Subramanyam Vs. A.P. State Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD770
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 11 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, filed this second appeal. He was Taluq Level Stockist for Palmolein Oil for Koilakuntla of Kurnool District, during the year 1982. On 20.5.1985, 23 barrels of palmolein oil was recovered from M/s. Pratap Traders in Nandyal. Suspecting that the said quantity was purchased from the appellant, his premises were inspected on 26.5.1985 and the entire quantity of 186 barrels was seized from him. The stock was entrusted to the safe custody, to a different person. Thereafter, the Sub-Collector, Nandyal, the 4th respondent herein, has decided to sell the seized quantity, through public distribution system. On noticing that there was shortage of about 5,163 Kgs., of palmolein oil, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Kurnool, the 3rd respondent herein. He, in turn, passed orders, dated 9.3.1986 (Ex.A.6), directing recovery of Rs. 55,448.60 ps., from the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Amara Satyanarayana Vs. Majeti (Amara) Srinivasa Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD423; 2008(2)ALT410
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Srinivas Emani, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri M. Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. This Court on 1.4.1999 made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial questions raised in Ground Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 14.The said Grounds are as hereunder:The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is contrary to law, in reversing the well considered judgment of the Trial Court, which held that the adoption of the respondent/defendant is not valid in law, as the adoption is violative of Section 10(iii) and (iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956, read with Section 5(2) of the said Act.The Lower Appellate Court erred in law and also on fact in not at all considering the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the defendant in proper perspective as required under law, which clearly established that the adoption said to have taken place on 22.8.1984, is not according to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Noor Mohammad Vs. Syed Khaja MoinuddIn and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP82; 2008(2)ALD641
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The second plaintiff in O.S. No. 2613 of 1979 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is the appellant. The suit was filed by the appellant and his brothers, respondents 3 and 4, against the sole defendant one Sri Syed Abdul Sattar, the father of respondents 1 and 2 herein, for redemption of mortgage covered by a mortgage deed, dated 23-1-1950.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in this suit.3. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged the property in favour of the first defendant (who died during the pendency of the suit) as a security for repayment of Rs. 4,000/- in Osmania Currency, equivalent to Rs. 3,420/-. A legal notice, dated 1-3-1971, was got issued, offering to pay the mortgage amount and requesting redelivery of the suit schedule property. Thereupon, the first defendant got issued a reply, dated 9-3-1971, stating that the father of the plaintiffs had executed a document, d...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddampalli Jagpal Reddy and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD616; 2008(3)ALT236
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The petitioners question the proceedings No. 252/07-B, dated 24.3.2007 of the 2nd respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District in deciding to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion of no-confidence on the President of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, G. Gowraram, Headquarters at Chintapally on the ground that the Managing Committee Members of the society submitted a representation regarding the No-confidence Motion on 23.3.2007.2. The first petitioner is the President of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, G. Gowraram, at Chintapally (for short 'the Society') and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the Managing Committee Members of the Society (hereinafter called as 'the Committee'). It is stated that the elections were held to thirteen members committee on 23.10.2005 and the first petitioner was elected as its President on 24.10.2005.3. It is the case of the petitioners that out of ten managing co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Anjaiah (Died) Rep. by L.Rs. Vs. Sri Vinay Kumar and 3 ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD517
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This contempt case is filed to punish the respondents for willful violation of the judgment dated 01.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No. 333 of 2005 and the directions contained in the order dated 05.12.2005 in C.C.No. 1165 of 2005.2. The contempt case was originally filed by Sri S.Anjaiah, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 333 of 2005 and petitioner in W.P.No. 19224 of 2004. As Sri Anjaiah died during the pendency of the contempt case, petitioners 2 to 6 came on record as per the order dated 13.3.2007 of this Court as his legal representatives.3. The facts in brief are narrated hereunder:S.Anjaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'writ petitioner') filed W.P.No. 19224 of 2004 for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation amount of Rs.88,69,320/- to him towards the value of the extent of 583 square metres equivalent to 694 square yards carved out of Survey No. 385/386/I/P, 447, 448 and 449 in T.S.Nos.156, 157 and 158 Block-A,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.S. Ashok Kumar S/O. Late Sri K. Sailoo Vs. the Cantonment Execut ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD580
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Dr. K.S. Ashok, writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in rejecting his application for permission for construction of compound wall, vide Lr.No. EB/P.No. 33/Seva Mandal CHS/EM' pally 39/2131, dated 13.06.2006, on the ground that he has not obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Hyderabad District Collector and Airport Authority of India as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to accord permission for construction of compound wall in respect of the property in question forthwith, and to pass such other suitable orders.2. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent.3. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, had taken this Court through Sections 2(4) and 194 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (for short hereinafter called 'the Act', for the purpose of convenience) and also had drawn the attention to t...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar JaIn Vs. Anand Mohan, Executive Director (Southern Power ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALT396
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as Chief Manager (Law) with the respondents-Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has filed these two writ petitions.2. In W.P. No. 13299 of 2007, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 16.04.2007, passed by the 1st respondent-Executive Director, placing him under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed against him, as illegal and arbitrary, or in the alternative to direct the 2nd respondent-Chairman-cum-Managing Director to appoint any other Executive Director of any region as disciplinary authority.3. This Court, vide order dated 28.06.2007, while admitting the writ petition, passed interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 16660 of 2007, suspending the order of suspension.4. While the above writ petition is pending before the Court, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13958 of 2007 assailing the order dated 25.06.2007, passed by the 1st respondent-Executive Director, appointing o...
Tag this Judgment!i. Manga Raju Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALT338
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the respective stands taken by the parties and perused the records produced before this Court.2. This Court ordered Notice before admission on 9-5-2007 and granted interim suspension for a period of six weeks. On 19-6-2007, the following order was made:Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as the 6th respondent.At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, post on 26-6-2007 for Reply.So far as interim order is concerned, though it is contended by the 6th respondent that pursuant to the order of bifurcation order of the authorization was granted in his favour on 2-5-2007 and basing on the same he had paid the amount on 5-5-2007 and the stocks were released in his favour for the month of May, 2007 immediately thereafter, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has placed before this Court the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 23-5-2007 which shows that in comp...
Tag this Judgment!Narla Venkata Siva Reddy Vs. Dereddy Nagireddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD363; 2008(1)ALT439
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioner and the second respondent for enforcing the agreement of sale dated 16.05.1990, alleging that the first respondent (sic. revision petitioner) after executing the agreement of sale in his favour fraudulently transferred some land to the second respondent. The trial Court, after contest, decreed the suit against the revision petitioner and dismissed the suit against the second respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the balance sale consideration with interest on the day fixed and gave a direction to the revision petitioner to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the first respondent. First respondent, after depositing the amount due and payable by him, filed the E.P. for execution of the decree in his favour directing the revision petitioner to execute and register the regular sale deed in his favour. Revision petitioner filed his c...
Tag this Judgment!N. Hemamalini Vs. N.A. Raghu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD171; 2008(1)ALT458
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the year 1994 and they had two children. Respondent filed F.C.O.P. No.626 of 2005 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), for dissolution of the marriage and for a direction to the petitioner to continue with the custody and care of the children. The O.P. was decreed ex parte on 11.11.2005. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 183 days, in presenting the application, she filed I.A.No.550 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. The petitioner pleaded that she was staying with her mother at Kadapa, on being sent away by the respondent, whereas the summons were sent to the residence of her brother. She further pleaded that she came to know about the filing of the O.P., in the month of October, and soo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »