Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Badiginchala Pedda Subbarayudu Vs. Badiginchala Chinna Subbaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD738; 2007(5)ALT610
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 3-12-1997 made the following order:The substantial question of law which arises for decision in this second appeal is whether Ex.A-5 is an arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act and enforceable under Section 17 of the said Act The second appeal is, therefore, admitted. Notice.2. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Smt. Vasireddy Vijaya, learned Counsel who is appointed as amicus curaie, to assist the Court since none represents the respondent.3. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial question of law on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and further had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and Sections 33 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and would maintain that the finding recorded by the appellate Court that the agree...
T. Venkatacharya and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD136; 2007(3)ALT622
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 161 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit was filed for declaration and for perpetual injunction. The learned Judge framed the point for consideration as hereunder.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.Ultimately, the learned Judge returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) with a direction to file the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge's Court having jurisdiction and the intimation of the return of the plaint to be informed to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were directed to file an application before the Court to specify the Court in which the plaintiffs propose to present the plaint after its return.2. Sri T.P. Acharya, learned Counsel representing the appellants would submit that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religiou...
Thimmaraju Shyama Sunder Rao and anr. Vs. Thimmaraju Jittender Rao and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD20; 2007(3)ALT378
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P. Hari Prasad, the learned Counsel representing Revision Petitioners and Sri G. Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent.2. The second and third respondents in the Civil Revision Petition are defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. The Revision Petitioners/ Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, filed an application in I.A. No. 268 of 2006 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code'), to summon Sri T. Manohar Rao as a witness on their behalf.3. It is stated by the petitioners that the matter is coming up for further evidence on their behalf, and the suit house and also the joint family properties were partitioned among their brothers long back and to speak about the partition and the family arrangements, the presence of Sri T. Manohar Rao is very much required.4. The said allegation was re...
Gori Sultan and ors. Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT174
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. There is a Wakf, by name, Sultan Shaheed Dargah-cum-ldgah at Atmakur Mandal in Nellore District. For the management of the affairs of the Wakf, the 1st respondent constituted a Committee with the 1st petitioner as President; petitioners 2 to 5 as office bearers, and petitioners 6 to 11 as members, through its order dated 30-8-2005, for a period of two years. However, shortly thereafter, the 1st respondent issued order dated 22-11 -2005, reconstituting the Committee by replacing the petitioners with Respondents 2 to 14. The petitioners challenge the said order, mainly on the grounds that it is violative of principles of natural justice, and that it came to be passed at the instance of the Minister of State, Health and family Welfare, Government of India, and a local M.L.A.2. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter affidavit is filed, denying the allegations of the writ petitioners. It is stated that the 1st respondent has ample power to constitute and re-cons...
Janab Gori Sultan and ors. Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD31
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. There is a Wakf, by name, Sultan Shaheed Dargah-cum-Idgah at Atmakur Mandal In Nellore District. For the management of the affairs of the Wakf, the 1st respondent constituted a Committee with the 1st petitioner as President; petitioners 2 to 5 as office bearers, and petitioners 6 to 11 as members, through its order dated 30-8-2005, for a period of two years. However, shortly thereafter, the 1st respondent issued order dated 22-11-2005, reconstituting the Committee by replacing the petitioners with respondents 2 to 14. The petitioners challenge the said order, mainly on the grounds that it is violative of principles of natural justice, and that it came to be passed at the instance of the Minister of State, Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and a local M.L.A.2. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed, denying the allegations of the writ petitioners. It is stated that the 1st respondent has ample power to constitute and re-const...
Eeda Ramaiah and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD331; 2007(4)ALT680
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Fishermen Cooperative Society, Garidepalli, was registered in the year 1981 under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). Elections were held, to elect the Managing Committee, from time to time. A Committee, consisting of President, Secretary and seven Directors, was elected on 24-1-2002, for a term of five years. Petitioners were part of the said Committee. The term of the Committee expired on 23-1-2007. It is alleged that the President of the said Committee, the 4th respondent herein, did not take necessary steps for conducting elections for the succeeding term. They also stated that, he admitted number of persons as members, without there being any resolution of the Managing Committee, or General Body.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any steps for conducting the elections by appointing a person, or persons-in-charge for the society, as contemplated under Section 32(7) of the Act.3. Ms....
Bagam Nageswara Rao and ors. Vs. Agent to Government and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT735
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) by the appellants-respondents-defendants in I.A. No. 52 of 2000 in O.S. No. 92 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government at Khammam.2. The relevant portion of the order, which is impugned in the present civil miscellaneous appeal, reads as hereunder.Basically the Sy. No. 179/A is having large extent of Ac.2520-30 gts. and an extent of Ac.600-00 is also recorded against Sy. No. 179/AA, in the name of the six joint pattedars. The land in dispute was got surveyed and as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Singareni and according to the survey report and sketch, it goes to show that the disputed land is in the occupaion of the petitioner/plaintiff and thus the balance of convenience lies with the petitioner-plaintiff. Accordingly, ad-interim (temporary) injunction is here...
C. Aswartha Narayana Reddy Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP176; 2007(3)ALD762
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner challenges the memo dated 18-1-2007, issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa, the 2nd respondent herein.2. The petitioner purchased a tractor and got it registered with the 2nd respondent, on 16-11-2006. It was assigned the registration mark of A.P.04-L-4995. Subsequently, he purchased a Tractor Driven Harvester, from the same manufacturer, and submitted an application on 6-1-2007 before the 2nd respondent, to make necessary entries in the registration certificate. It is stated that the Transport Commissioner had approved the motor and specification of the harvester, through his proceedings dated 23-9-2006. The tractor and the harvester were produced before the 2nd respondent, on 8-1-2007, for necessary inspection. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent rejected the application, stating that there is no provision to convert the tractor into tractor driven harvester. Petitioner contends that the harvester is nothing, but an ag...
Vusikala Kanaka Laxmi Vs. Vushikala Yellamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD735; 2007(4)ALT41
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Second respondent in O.P. No. 8 76 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. Respondent herein filed O.P. No. 8 76 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) claiming herself as the mother of the deceased Veeraswamy praying for issuance of Succession Certificate for the death benefits payable on account of the death of Veeraswamy. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, R.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9, Exs.B-1 to B-16 and also Exs.X1 to X-4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P., to be paid half of the amount as per the Succession Certificate already issued and the appellant herein, the second respondent in the O.P., to establish her claim as legally wedded wife of Veeraswamy within six month...
Kommidi Mahender Reddy Vs. Kommidi Suryamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD90; 2007(3)ALT619
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The Revision Petitioner filed O.S. No. 17 of 1995. In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli against the respondent herein seeking partition of the suit schedule properties.2. The suit claim was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement. Issues were settled on 8-9-1996. After several adjournments at the request of the plaintiff/ Revision Petitioner to produce evidence on his behalf, ultimately, the suit was posted to 8-3-2000. Even on that day, since the plaintiff was not present and no evidence was produced, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Revision Petitioner filed two applications for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and the other to condone the delay in filing the said application. The Court below having condoned the delay of 22 days restored the suit subject to the condition that the evidence shall be produced by the plaintiff on 23-10-2002. However, the plaintiff/ Revision petitioner failed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »