Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Khandavalli Ramachandracharyulu Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD570; 2008(5)ALT685
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Subba Reddy, representing Sri V.L.N. Gopala Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri V.T.M. Prasad and Sri A. Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 10.9.2007 and an order of status quo was made for a limited period. Subsequent thereto, the order of status quo was extended for further limited period. This Court issued Rule nisi on 25.10.2007. The order of status quo already passed was extended for further limited period. The third respondent filed W.P.M.P. No. 2418 of 2007 and the second respondent filed W.V.M.P. No. 3065 of 2007. The petitioner also filed reply affidavit. The Counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition on the ground that no further pleadings need be put in. In the light of the same, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.3. Khandavalli Ram...
Somisetti Venkata Rama Krishna Rao S/O. Musalayya Vs. Kandiboyina Kond ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD786; 2008(2)ALT304
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri Rama Mohan, the learned Counsel representing Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. On 25.02.1999 this Court made the following order:In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No.4 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the appeal is admitted.3. On the strength of the pleadings, in fact, the second appeal had been admitted as specified above.4. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal.1. Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit, by reversing the well-considered judgment and decree of the trial Court, especially, when the appellate Court has also upheld the title of the plaintiff?2. Whether the appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit for injunction simplicitor, ignoring the well established principles of law that possession follows title and refusing ...
T. Krishnama Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. T. Muniswamy Naidu (Died) and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD503; 2008(2)ALT605
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree, dated 29.08.1988, passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in O.S.No. 61 of 1981.2. Over the past quarter of a century, almost all the original parties to the suit died, and their legal representatives are on record.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.4. Sri Takkillapati Muniswami Naidu, the first defendant, had four sons, by name T. Krishnama Naidu, the plaintiff, T. Chengalraya Naidu, the second defendant, T. Doraswamy Naidu, the third defendant, T. Srinivasulu Naidu, the fourth defendant. His wife, Narayanamma, the fifth defendant. The family held vast extents of landed, and other properties. Doraswamy Naidu filed the suit for partition against his father, three brothers and mother. He pleaded that there was a severance of status of the joint family on account of the disputes among the womenfolk, but the properties were not divided by metes an...
Smt. Nori Kameswaramma W/O Late Venkata Sastry and ors. Vs. the Dist C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD449; 2008(2)ALT346
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare that notwithstanding the transfer of the suit lands from Polavaram village to Pragadapalli village for administrative convenience, the laws applicable to the suit lands viz., Survey Nos. 239, 240, 241/1, 241/2, 242/1, 242/2, 243/1, 243/2, 244, 254/1, 291 and 292 are the laws which are applicable to Polavaram village and not the laws exclusively applicable to Scheduled Areas.2. The petitioners contended that they are having lands in Polavaram village admeasuring an extent of 80 acres in Paimaish No. 1 locally called as Rayudu Khandam in part of patta No. 6 and now surveyed as survey Nos. 239, 240, 241/1, 241/2, 242/1, 242/2, 243/1, 243/2, 244, 254/1, 291 and 292. The Governor General in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 91 of the Government of India Act, 1935 passed 'the Madras partially Excluded Area (Cesser) Order, 1950 (Annexure-V) whereunder the area comprised in the vil...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Sriba Industries Limited a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALT651
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondents herein under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged noncompliance with the order passed by this Court on 14-6-2007 in W.V.M.P. Nos. 253 & 254 of 2007 in W.P.M.P. Nos. 820 and 821 of 2007 in W.P. No. 661 of 2007.2. The petitioner herein (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited-hereinafter referred to as ONGC) is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.661 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein represented by the 2nd respondent being its Whole-time Director. The 3rd respondent herein, described as Chairman & Managing Director of the 1st respondent Company was not a party to the writ petition.3. In W.P. No.6 61 of 2007 a Writ of Mandamus was sought declaring the action of ONGC in withdrawing the benefit of APM price in relation to natural gas supplied to the power plant of the writ petitioner (1st respondent herein) and in demanding payment of market price retrospectively as a...
Chitte Siddaiah S/O. Late Ramaiah and ors. Vs. Chitte Sujatha W/O. Chi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)574; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)225
ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 to A.6 in PRC No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddutur, Kadapa district.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the records.3. The first respondent herein gave a report to the police against the petitioners-A.2 to A.6 and her husband-A.1 alleging offences under Sections 307, 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Proddutur I Town Police registered it as Cr. No. 69 of 2007 and after due investigation, police filed a charge sheet against all the accused before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in PRC No. 20 of 2007 and issued process against the accused.4. Aggrieved by the same, the present pe...
Nabbooma Bee and anr. Vs. Syed Ali Akbar NizamuddIn Hussain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD269; 2008(2)ALT351
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 12.3.1999 made the following order.The second appeal is admitted. Questions (a) and (b) of paragraph 9 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal are the substantial questions to be considered in this second appeal.The said grounds (a) and (b) read as hereunder:(a) Whether the courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit in the light of Ex.B-2 declaratory decree declaring that the properties of Darga are not wakf properties?(b) Whether the courts below were justified in assuming that the suit properties are wakf properties in the absence of primary document of Muntakhab being produced by the plaintiff and in the teeth of Ex.B-2 decree declaring to the contrary?Learned senior counsel Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, also had pointed out that apart from the said grounds (a) and (b) under 9, ground (c) also may have to be considered and the said ground (c) reads as hereunder.(c) Whether the courts below were justified in holding Ex.A-1 to A-3 having ...
V. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy S/O V. Venkat Reddy Vs. Andhra Bank (a Govt. o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD54; 2008(3)ALT428
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant General Manager in Andhra Bank. He filed W.P. No. 23410 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first writ petition') seeking to direct the respondents to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn, and consequently direct the respondents to continue him in service. While the first writ petition is pending before this Court, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16996 of 2007 assailing the proceedings dated 09.07.2004 accepting his application for voluntary retirement and retiring him from service and the consequential order dated 12.07.2004 relieving him from service.2. The petitioner joined the respondents-Andhra Bank as Rural Credit Officer in MM-II Cadre on 13.05.1977. He was given promotions to the next higher posts from time to time. He worked at various branches/offices of the respondents within Andhra Pradesh and outside. While working as Assistant General Manager, the petitioner states that because of health reaso...
K. Errappa Vs. N. Narayana Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD404; 2008(1)ALT618
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application to add respondents 7 to 12 as the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent herein to the main revision petition.2. When the revision petition was taken up for admission and disposal, on issuance of notice, Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned Counsel for the proposed parties insisted for an order on the impleadment petition.3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition, are, briefly, as under:4. The first revision petitioner herein is the decree-holder and the respondents herein are the judgment debtors in EP No.1/1999 in ATC No.1/1984 on the file of Special Officer-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.5. The first petitioner-cultivating tenant filed ATC No.1/1984 under Section 16 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 to declare him as a cultivating tenant; to continue in possession and to grant permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deeds in favour of the respondents 2 to 6 as nominal...
Cheerla @ Cuddapah Naganna Vs. Koya Naganna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD806; 2008(2)ALT595
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2007 in I.A. No. 1160 of 2007 in OS No. 201 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking declaration of title as well as perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property.3. The said suit was contested by the defendant and both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 1160 of 2007 with a prayer to reopen the suit for recalling D.W.1 for further cross-examination, stating that it is necessary to elicit certain aspects with regard to Ex.Bl, under which the defendant claims title to the property. The said application was opposed by the defendant and the Court below by order dated 25.9.2007 dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »