Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Mahipal Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD56
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed OP No. 281 of 1999, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, as compensation, for the injuries received by him in an accident that took place on 13.7.1998. It was pleaded that on that day he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-11E-7659, towards Kothapet Fruit Market, and on the way, an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-28T-9732, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Serious injuries to the head and leg of the 1st respondent were caused, and it was alleged that the 1st respondent is the driver of a heavy vehicle, and on account of the injuries, he virtually became disabled. Particulars of the treatment undergone by him were also furnished.2. The OP was contested by the appellant, as well as the 2nd respondent. Through its order dated 8.1.2002, the Tribun...
Erlapati Veera Lakshmi Vs. Guda Haritha Rani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD366; 2008(2)ALT604
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 16774 of 2007 filed this petition to review the order dated 8-8-2007 under which the writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission.2. Writ Petition No. 16774 of 2007 was filed questioning the order dated 1-8-2007 in O.P. No. 860 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, whereunder not only the election of the writ petitioner as Sarpanch of Tallapudi Gram Panchayat was declared illegal and set aside on the ground that she suffered disqualification under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') but also the respondent herein was declared elected.3. This Court by order dated 8-8-2007 dismissed the writ petition thereby confirming the order made by the learned District Judge in O.P. No. 860 of 2006.4. In this Review petition while submitting that under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 the District Court can only decide the questio...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Gamini Bala Koteswara Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)1; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)72
K.C. Bhanu, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1280 of 2005 is filed by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 05.09.2003 in Sessions Case No. 383 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam district, whereas the Criminal Revision Case No. 1622 of 2004 is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by P.W. 1 in the Sessions Case, who the complainant, against the same judgment of acquittal.2. The brief facts as delineated by the prosecution witnesses may be stated as follows:Soodidela Satyanarayana Reddy @ Narapu Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was one of the contestants for the post of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency member of Illapavuluru as Congress-I candidate. A.6-Mandalapu Venkateswarlu was also a contestant for the said post as the Telugu Desam Party candidate in that election. On 6.3.1995, the electio...
Kapu China Veerabhadra Rao S/O K. Yellaji Rao Vs. Authorised Officer, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD754; III(2008)BC474
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri N. Yijay, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, and Sri K. Suryanarayana, learned Counsel representing the first respondent.2. The writ petition is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in proposing to take physical possession of residential building bearing No. 48-48-25, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security, Interest Act, 2002 (for short hereinafter called 'the Securitisation Act', for the purpose of convenience) and consequently to restrain the first respondent from taking physical possession of the building in question, and to pass such other suitable order or orders in the circumstances of the case.3. It is stated that the petitioner is a tenant of a residential building bearing No. 46-18-25 situated at Danavai...
Chella Siva Kumar Reddy Vs. Kudumula Surendra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD638; 2008(1)ALT335
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 176 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,03,853/-. The suit was decreed. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 158 of 2004, under Rues 37 and 38 of Order 21 C.P.C., with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest against the respondent. He pleaded that the respondent is possessed of adequate movable and immovable properties and despite the same, he did not honour the commitment under the decree. The E.P. was opposed by the respondent and he urged that he is not possessed of any property. Through its order, dated 03.07.2006, the trial Court dismissed the E.P. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client placed sufficient and reliable material before the Executing Court to prove that the respondent is possessed of adequate means, and still, the E.P. was dis...
Juvva Seetha Punyeswari Vs. Sanadi Muni Ratnam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD151; 2008(1)ALT314
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These five revisions arise out of various orders, dated 20.4.2007, passed by the court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in O.S. No. 955 of 2002. The parties are common to all the revisions.2. The petitioner filed the suit for a declaration that she is entitled to be extended the post retirement benefits of late Gantaiah, who retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department. She pleaded that she was married to Gantaiah on 5.2.1961, and both of them had three sons, by name Harikumar, Anil Kumar and Aswani Kumar, and out of them, Anil Kumar alone is living. She pleaded that the 1st respondent, who was a subordinate of Gantaiah, developed illicit relations with him and made a claim for the benefits of property left by Gantaiah, as though she is legally wedded wife. The 1st respondent filed a written statement, stating that the marriage between the petitioner and Gantaiah was dissolved, according to the prevalent customs, and the...
Smt. Kamili Sarojini Vs. Indian Bank, Avanigadda Branch
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP71; 2008(2)ALD581; III(2008)BC299
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 6-7-2006. The respondent filed counter affidavit. At the request of the counsel representing the parties, the Writ Petition itself is being finally disposed of.2. Sri C. Raghu, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and had drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed by the respondent and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case insisting for obtaining a probate of the Will from a competent Court may not be justified. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions and would submit that in the peculiar facts of the case, at the best the respondent be directed to receive the indemnity bond from the petitioner in this regard and nothing beyond thereto can be demanded by the respondent.3. The learned Counsel representing the respondent-Indian Bank however, would maintain tha...
R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. a Partnership Firm Duly Registered with the R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD810; 2008(6)ALT4
B. Prakash Rao, J. 1. The appellant is an unsuccessful applicant in the Court below, who filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act' for brevity) assailing the order dated 08.03.2002 in O.P. No. 44 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting an application filed under Sections 33 and 37 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein he sought to condone the delay in preferring the claims/disputes in view of the undue hardship that would be caused to him and for determining the Arbitration Clause.2. Heard Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant, who is a Class-I Contractor, was awarded the work of construction of structural steel and cladding work by the respondents fixing the period for completion within twenty o...
Amir Ali and anr. Vs. Maneck H. Ghadiali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD261; 2008(2)ALT205
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Respondents filed R.C. No. 207 of 1991, against the petitioners, before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction. As many as five grounds under the relevant clauses of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act'), were pleaded. It was alleged that the petitioners:(a) have sub-let the premises to the third parties;(b) committed acts of waste, impairing the utility of the building;(c) secured alternative accommodation for their business;(d) committed wilful default in payment of the rent from July 1992 to March 1994; and that(e) the premises are needed for respondent No. 1 to start business;2. The case was opposed by the petitioners; by filing counter. Through its order dated 30.7.2004, the learned Rent Controller, directed eviction of the petitioners, on the ground that the premises are needed for bona fide requirement of the respondents and that the petitioners committed wilful default, ...
A.A. Lords Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Co. and ors. Vs. Maneck H. Ghadiali and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD391
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These civil revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the orders passed under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rejecting the plaints in three suits.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in C.R.P. No. 5153 of 1998.3. The genesis for this long drawn and multifaceted litigation is as under:The 1st respondent is the mother of respondents 2 and 3. They are the owners of the premises bearing No. 1-6-49, Park Lane, Secunderabad. The said property was leased to Sri Amir All and his brother Mehdi Mahmood, petitioners 1 and 2 under a registered document dated 30.5.1977. The rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- for the first three months and thereafter at Rs. 750/-per month. The lease was agreed to be in force for a period of 9 years. The petitioners were conferred with the right to exercise option for renewal of the lease for three spe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »