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.
Y. Chennappa Vs. Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALT257
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri I. Gopala Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.2. Rule Nisi was issued on 04-01 -2007.3. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda in suspending the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner as per orders in Rc. C. No. 144/2005 dated 21-02-2005 and continuance of the same indefinitely without holding any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the mandatory provisions of the Control Orders and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and also opposed to the principles of the natural justice and the said order is liable to be set aside and further issue directions to the respondents in the nature of Mandamus to permit the petitioner to function as F.P. Shop dealer of Udumulakurthy village, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur Di...
Goli Sura Reddy and ors. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD102
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Goli Sura Reddy and others filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the first respondent in ROC. No. Appeal/07, dated 24.7.2007, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently, to set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders.2. Counter-affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3. W.V.M.P. No. 2019 of 2007 is filed by respondent No. 4. Since the pleadings are complete, with the consent of the Counsel on record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.3. Sri Janardhan Rao representing Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that the impugned order is not in accordance with Regulation 17(c) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Control Order' for the purpose of convenience).4. The learned Counsel...
J. Hari Kumar Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD468; 2007(6)ALT775
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B. Sivakesava Reddy, learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent.2. The short question, which had been argued in elaboration by the counsel representing the respective parties, is in relation to whether an interim order can be made without giving reasonable opportunity to the opposite party, as specified by the proviso of Clause 21(2) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (hereinafter in short referred to 'Order' for the purpose of convenience)3. It is contended by Sri Ratangapani Reddy, on a careful reading of Clause 21 of the Order aforesaid since the wording being 'no order shall be passed under this clause', it would apply both to interim order and also final order. Learned Counsel also had taken this Court through certain other fact...
B.E. Hanumantha Charyulu S/O. Ramcharyulu and ors. Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD593; 2008(3)ALT227
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1.1 The petitioners herein are the land-holders of Buddepalli Inam Estate in Ananthapur District which was taken over by the Government on 3-7-1964. Consequent to introduction of settlement rates, the Basic Annual Sum and total compensation payable in respect of the estate were determined by the Director of Settlements as 'Nil' under Section 39(1) of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Estates Abolition Act') vide proceedings date 18-6-1969. Appeal under Section 39(5) of the Estates Abolition Act against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records on 16-10-1979. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 2165 of 1981 and this Court having allowed the writ petition, remanded the matter to the Director of Settlements to compute the income that could have been fetched during the relevant years. Though the Government carried the matter in Appeal to the Supreme Court, the same was dismissed by ord...
Grandhi Narayana Chetty Vs. Mitta Lokesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP42; 2008(1)ALD718; 2008(1)ALT573
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Plaintiff is in revision against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in an unnumbered suit (R.R. No. 2598 of 2007) filed for recovery of Rs. 6.00 lakhs on the basis of ten promissory notes executed by defendant-respondent, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge ordered for payment of Court fee separately on each of the ten promissory notes as per Section 6(3)(a) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act granting time till 17.7.2007.2. The petitioner herein filed a suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs based on ten promissory notes executed by the defendant herein, out of which, two promissory notes are executed for Rs. 1.00 lakh each and the remaining eight promissory notes are executed for Rs. 50,000/- each, alleging that the said amounts are borrowed by the defendant on the same day i.e. 27.10.2004 executing separate promissory notes. In paragraph 3 of the plaint ...
K. Surender Rao and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD645
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. As the point involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. Facts, in brief, are: Petitioners in all these writ petitions are vendor and vendees of some sale deeds. They presented the said sale deeds before the second respondent - District Registrar for Registration, but the second respondent refused to register the said sale deeds and raised two objections viz., (1) that unless and until a clearance is obtained under the provisions of Act 33 of 1976, no registration can be done; (2) that he received instructions from the first respondent not to register the lands in question. According to the petitioners, though the said objections are not by way of written order, they represented before the second respondent as to how the lands in question are outside the purview of Act 33 of 1976 and also requested him to furnish a copy of the instructions received by him. Despite their representatio...
The Agricultural Market Committee, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Sri. Anan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)435; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)305; 2008CriLJ2794
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. All these appeals are preferred by the complainant-the Agricultural Market Committee, Tenali, against the acquittal orders in C.C. Nos. 120, 115, 119, 128, 131, 127, 117, 123, 129, 126, 125, 116, 124,118, 122 and 130 of 2001, dated 22-10-2001 respectively, on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District, finding the accused not guilty for the contravention of the provisions of 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') as amended in 1987. The complainant-Agricultural Marketing Committee, Tenali is constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act 1966.2.1 The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows:The accused was doing business in agricultural produce in Tenali without getting licence for the year 1999-2000 under Section 7(1) of the Markets Act, 1987. The accused has. done vegetable business in the premises situated in Gandhi ...
Edulakanti Narsimha Reddy and ors. Vs. Srirama Warehouse
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD622; 2008(3)ALT30; IV(2008)BC655
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 778 of 1992, in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the deceased-1st petitioner, by name E. Narasimha Reddy, for recovery of money. It was alleged that E. Narasimha Reddy offered to sell his tractor and trailer to the respondent, for a sum of Rs. 80,780/-and the respondent issued a cheque, for that amount. It is also alleged that E. Narasimha Reddy received the cheque and encashed the same, but did not deliver the tractor and trailer. A written statement was filed by E. Narasimha Reddy, denying the transaction, but admitting the receipt of the cheque and encashment thereof. During the pendency of the suit, he died. Petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record, as legal representatives.2. With the leave of the trial Court, petitioners 2 to 4 filed a separate written statement. They disputed even the receipt of cheque by E. Narasimha Reddy, as well as its encashment. Several new grounds, such as...
K. Yeshwanth Rao Vs. Dr. T. Jayasimha Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD472; 2007(6)ALT204
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, dated 26-4-2007 thereby rejecting the request of the Revision petitioner/1st defendant in O.S. No. 262 of 1996 to declare D.W. 7 as hostile.2. The facts, in brief, are as under:The plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 262 of 1996 on the file of the Court of l-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, for eviction and recovery of vacant possession of Plaint B-Schedule Property and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant/Revision petitioner from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of Plaint A-Schedule Property and for other reliefs. The suit claim was based upon a Registered Sale Deed, dated 16-1-1995, executed by the defendants 2 and 3. The 1st defendant/Revision Petitioner filed written statement claiming title to the Suit Schedule Property under a Registered Will, dated 24-1-1976 executed by his father a...
Y. Bhaskara Raju Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD612; 2008(3)ALT370
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These writ petitions are coming up for admission. Sri Rajiv Reddy, learned Counsel, who had accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, had raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petitions and prayed for time for filing counter-affidavits. Accordingly, counter-affidavits are filed.2. In all these writ petitions, the question involved being similar and the facts also being similar, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.3. Heard Sri N. Vidya Prasad, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner in all these writ petitions and Sri Rajiv Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents in all these writ petitions.4. These writ petitions are filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not finalizing the bills and refunding the security deposit amounts made by the petitioner in relation to the works under agreements. The details of which had been furnished in the resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »