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.
J. Chandramohan Goud and ors. Vs. Junior Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD65; 2007(4)ALT179
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioners are the Advocates practicing in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda. Kurnool District. They feel aggrieved by the orders issued by the 4th respondent in G.O. Rt. No. 1949, dated 30-12-2002, appointing the 5th respondent herein as Assistant Government Pleader for that Court.2. The petitioners state that after the post of Assistant Government Pleader fell vacant, steps were initiated in accordance with the instructions in G.O. Ms. No. 187, Law (L) Department, dated 16-12-2000 (for short 'the instructions'). According to them, the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, first respondent herein forwarded a panel of five Advocates, including their names, to the learned District Judge, Kunool, second respondent herein. It is stated that the name of the 5th respondent was not at all included in the panel, and despite the same, he came to be appointed.3. Sri Harischandra Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent i...
C. Aswartha Narayana Reddy Vs. Transport Commissioner and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT177
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 on 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 ...
Valluru China Lakshmi Vs. Majji Dharma Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD199; 2007(6)ALT69
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note dated 31-10-1999 executed by the respondent in her favour for Rs. 1,300/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum alleging that, in spite of her getting issued a registered notice through her Counsel demanding payment of the amount, the respondent failed to send a reply or repaid the amount due under the promissory note. Respondent filed his written statement inter alia contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document and that he never executed that suit promissory note and did not receive consideration under the said promissory note. In support of her case, the revision petitioner, besides examining herself as P.W.1, examined the scribe and attestor of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as D.W.1 but did not adduce-any documentary evidence. The trial ...
S.K. Mishra, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southeastern Railwa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD26; [2007(113)FLR1034]; (2007)IIILLJ83AP
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the Orders dated 11-11-1995 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Hyderabad in Application No. 104/94 as arbitrary and illegal.2. Petitioner is the opposite party/ management-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam. It has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the said Order dated 11-11-1995, wherein the petitioner herein was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 58,785-20 ps for four weekly offs to 280 applicants towards overtime payment (for the days they worked on weekly off) and Rs.l,079.60towards two times compensation (for the difference of minimum wages to be paid) and Rs. 52.30 towards overtime payment for the weekly off for each workman as per the list.3. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The respondent-applicants are all working as Railway Licensed Porters. Railways evolved a system to engage...
B. Agnis Marry Vs. Kanaparthi Jamima Raja Kumari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD508; 2007(3)ALT388; [2007(114)FLR1053]
P.S. Narayana, J.1. B. Agnis Marry, the fourth respondent in S.O.P. No. 17 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Ill-Additional District Judge, Guntur, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, being aggrieved of an order made by the learned Judge dated 21-7-2000 granting succession certificate in favour of first respondent-petitioner, Kanaparthi Jamima Raja Kumari.2. The appellant is the second wife of the deceased, Kanaparthi Vedantha Deva Roy. The first respondent is the daughter of the said Kanaparthi Vedantha Deva Roy through his first wife, who is no more.3. The specific case of the respondent-petitioner is that her father, Kanaparthi Vedantha Deva Roy died on 3-7-1997 testate executing last registered Will in a sound disposing state of mind n 15-1-1996. The claim for the issuance of a succession certificate by first respondent-petitioner was resisted by the appellant-respondent No. 4 denying the very execution of the Will as such. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P....
Yerra Seethamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaskar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD767; 2007(4)ALT32
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), the widow, children and parents of Nageswara Rao (the deceased) preferred this appeal.2. The case of the appellants is that when the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle, as a pillion rider, a vehicle belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against that motor cycle resulting in his death. As the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/-per month as photographer and agriculturist, they are entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. First respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and in this Court. Second respondent contested the claim petition on various grounds. Having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, the T...
Barade Nagender Rao Vs. G. Sadasivudu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD419
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19-8-1995, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in AS No. 9 of 1993, by which, the judgment and decree, dated 23-4-1993, passed by the learned District Munsif, Sangareddy in OS No. 27 of 1982 was reversed and dismissed the suit.2. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal:(c) The appellate Court could not appreciate the aspect of burden of proof especially in the light of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act.(g) The appellate Court should have appreciated that the alleged sale cannot be relied upon in the light of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.(h) The appellate Court should have appreciated that the defendant's never denied the title of the plaintiffs and hence the adverse possession never commenced at all at any point of ...
S. Vajra Manemma and ors. Vs. Ileni Laxma Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP203; 2007(3)ALD445
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This application is filed to condone the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal by third parties against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.2. The case, in brief, of the petitioners is that first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2-8-1994 executed by respondents 2 to 6 in his favour in respect of Ac. 1-03 gts of land on Sy. No. 83 of Narsapur Village, though that property does not exclusively belong to them and is a part of the joint family property belonging to them, Respondents 2 to 6 and others. Their grandfather Brahmaiah was the manager of the joint family. The said Brahmaiah begot five sons including their father Rajamallaiah who died leaving behind them as his legal representatives. Their uncle Nagabhushanam filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties including the said Acs. 1-03 gts, making Respondents 2 to 6 also parties to the said suit. Respondents 2 to ...
Midwest Integrated Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas102(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, in C.C. No. 251 of 2001, dated July 8, 2002, by the court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. Each of them was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 in default, A2 shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. This revision has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the said order of conviction and sentence.2. A preliminary objection is taken by learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent that in terms of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), an appeal is provided against the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the present revision case is not maintainable. Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under:Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of...
G. Nagabhushanam and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP179; 2007(4)ALT101
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the action of the respondents, requiring the petitioners to surrender the 'basic permits' issued to the respective vehicles, for the purpose of cancellation; is challenged. The impugned action is said to be in pursuance of a circular dated 11-12-2006, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh.2. The petitioners are the owners of contract carriages. All of them were issued basic permits in Form P.C. under Section 74 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 174 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). The said permits were issued in pursuance of a policy decision taken by the Government and issued in memo, dated 1-6-1991. These permits enabled the respective owners to obtain special permits under Sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Act. The Transport Commissioner issued a circular dated 11-12-2006, stating inter alia that Sub-section (8) of Section 88 ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »