Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
K.S.B. Ali S/O. K.Z. Ali (In Representative Capacity of 203 Legal Heir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD548; 2007(6)ALT647
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This Writ appeal is filed against order dated 14-7-2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.14439 of 2006, whereby he dismissed the same in limine.2. The appellant for himself and in his representative capacity on behalf of 203 co-legal heirs of Nawab Nusarath Jung Bahadur-I, filed Writ Petition No.14439 of 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the tenders called for by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, 7th respondent herein, (for short 'HUDA') for sale of Ac.100.00 guntas of land situated in Kokapet village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as malafide, arbitrary, malicious, capricious and unconstitutional. The appellant also sought for a declaration that HUDA never had any title to the property in dispute and that their attempt to sell away the same in public auction, without following the due process of law, as null and void. The background facts:3. Late Nawab Nusrat Jung Bahadur-I (for short 'late Nu...
Allam Ramu and anr. Vs. Yelakacherla Narasimhulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD28
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Petitioner/plaintiff invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in assailing the correctness of the docket order passed by the Junior civil Judge, Chittoor in O.S. (SR) No.2717 of 2007 dated 03-08-2007, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction has been returned directing them to present the suit in the proper court while fixing the notional value based on the market value of the properties.2. The facts giving rise to filing this revision as stated in the plaint are as under:The 1st plaintiff entered into possessory sale agreement with the defendant on 26-08-2006 for an amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.9,00,000/- under two cheques dated 26-08-2006 for Rs.3,50,000/- each and Rs.2,00,000/- cash. On receipt of the said amount the defendant delivered the vacant possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The defendant previously sold item No. 2 of plaint schedule property ...
Maddela Lazar Vs. Kopreddy Venkata Subba Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD6; 2008(2)ALT28
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against an order made in I.A. No. 563 of 2007 in A.S. No. 21 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. It is needless to say that as against an order of this nature CRP under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable. As can be seen from the facts, the interim injunction granted earlier was made absolute by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur in I.A. No. 563 of 2007 by order dated 28-2-2007. It is also pertinent to note that an order of interim injunction had been granted in a pending appeal by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. As.against such order, the Civil Revision Petition as such cannot be maintained. In K. Gangulappa Naidu and Ors. v. K. Gangi Naidu : AIR1982AP284 it was held by the learned Judge of this Court as follows:In the instant case pending the appeal preferred against th...
Rachakonda Venkatacharyulu Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD608
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sugar, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Saratkumar, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 5.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action of the first respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments, in passing the impugned order in L. Dis. No. G1/13408/05, dated 16.7.2005, as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and pass such other suitable orders.3. The order impugned in the present writ petition reads as hereunder:Office of the Commissioner,Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad.L.Dis. No. G1/13408/05, dated 16.7.2005.Sub:--Endowments Department-Representation of Sri G. Govindacharyulu, Founder Trustee, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nampally (V), Vemulawada (M), Declaration of his son as Founder Trustee- Rejected- Reg.Ref:--RC No. A2/2581/C04, dated ...
The Joint Director of Agriculture Rep. by the P.P., High Court Vs. Sai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1753
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Appeal is preferred by the State represented by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur in C.C. No. 223 of 1996 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.2. The Joint Director of Agriculture filed a case against the accused for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) read with 3(k)(i) & (viii) of the Insecticides Act, 1958. According to the prosecution A-1 is the Dealer, A-2 is the Distributor, A-3 is the Managing Partner, A-4 is the Manufacturing Firm and A-5 is the Quality Controller of A-4 Firm. On 16-09- 1995, PW-1, the then Agricultural Officer (T&V;), Pedakakani, who is an Insecticides Officer under the Act, on credible information that A-1 is conducting business in insecticides without valid licence required to be obtained under Clause 13(1)(A) of the Act, inspected the business premises of A-1 and found 8 items of insecticides kept in the room. PW-1 sealed the room under the cover of mediatornama for want of sufficient lighting to draw th...
D.V.R.K.V. Prasad Raju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALT757
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel representing petitioner, learned Government Pleaderfor Endowments and Sri M. Audinarayana Raju, representing respondents.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring action of the second respondent in not implementing the proceedings in Memo bearing No.17927/ Endts.-IV(2)/05-1, dated 30.4.2005 and consequential proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments, bearing No.L1/ 9197/2005, dated 05.5.2005, as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith conduct public auction to the land in question, namely 36 acres of land in Survey No. 276 in Adivivaram village, popularly known as 'Pulleti Dhara Thota' in Visakhapatnam District and to grant lease hold rights for a period of thirty years for development of medicinal plants, as per the above referred proceedings and pass such other su...
Tekulapally Veera Reddy and ors. Vs. Tekulapally Narayana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP60; 2008(3)ALD326; 2008(4)ALT530
P.S. Narayana, J.1. These two Second Appeals are filed by the unsuccessful defendant Tukulapally Veera Reddy aggrieved by the decree and judgment made in A.S. No. 17 of 1994 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, and also the decree and judgment made in A.S. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Court of said Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, respectively. The appellant died and the legal representatives were brought on record in both these appeals. Narayana Reddy, second plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 20 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gajwel, is the respondent. It is stated that first plaintiff Sathamma is no more. Both the plaintiffs - Sathamma and Narayana Reddy instituted the suit - O.S. No. 20 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gajwel, praying for the reliefs of cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 1-9-1993 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act, for brevity) and a...
Somisetty Subbarao Vs. Mynampati Ramakrishna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP129; 2008(2)ALD296; 2008(2)ALT177; IV(2008)BC229
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 192 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the money. The suit was decreed by the trial Court through the judgment dated 19.1.2000. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 27 of 2000 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by contending that the plaintiff got the suit promissory note transferred for consideration from the original creditor. Later, he filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the money. In the revision petition, the defendant took two grounds to convince this Court, that the suit itself is not maintainable as it was filed before the wrong Court, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further ...
Jupudi Hanumantha Prasad Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD506; 2008(4)ALT730
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri Satish Kumar and Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. Jupudi Hanumantha Prasad, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued in proceedings B/267/07, dated 24.03.2007, passed by the 4th respondent and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Reference. No. 7/07, dated 02.05.2007 (to the extent of it went against the petitioner) as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to re-examine the entire issue with relevant records and appoint Single Trustee for the subject Institution and to pass other suitable order.3. Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in suppo...
Katikala Ratnam S/O. Kotaiah Vs. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)578
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Accused No. 1 (for brevity 'A-1') and the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.2. Appellant is Accused No. 1 in the Sessions Case.3. This Criminal Appeal, by A-1 (through jail), under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 30.11.2004, passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in S.C.No.685 of 2002, convicting A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days and also convicting for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days and directed to run both the sentences concurrently.4. The gravamen of the charge is f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »