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.
R. Sarangapani and ors. Vs. Principal Secy. to the Gov., Dept. of Agri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD264; 2007(3)ALT636
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the residents of different villages of Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. The first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 288 Agriculture and Co-operation (MKTG.1-2) Department, dated 19.7.2005, constituting the market committee at Jainmikunta with the fourth respondent as its Chairman and seventeen others as its members. The petitioners raised an objection as to the eligibility of the fourth respondent to be appointed as Chairman and accordingly, made a representation to the first respondent on 27.9.2005. Through its memo, dated 30.9.2005, the first respondent called for a report from the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, who, in turn, submitted a report, dated 2.5.2006. Taking the same into account, the first respondent issued a memo, dated 2.1.2007, indicating that the allegations made by the petitioners are without any basis. The petitioners challenge the said memo. 2. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, the learned Counsel for the petitioners s...
Chenna Madavuni Prathap Raju Vs. Rayala Rama Rao Chowdhary @ Ravi Moha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALT414
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-10-2006 in IA No. 1560 of 2006 in O.P. No. 291 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.2. The Revision Petitioner was the claimant in O.P. No. 291 of 2005 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The said O.P. was decreed on 7-10-2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,28,500/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the petition till deposit, apart from proportionate costs. The Tribunal below permitted the petitioner/claimant to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- out of the compensation awarded, and the balance was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, he filed I.A. No. 1560 of 2006 seeking permission to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 90,192/- which has been kept in fixed dep...
Somishetty Ganga Ram Vs. Dr. P. Ramalingam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP198; 2007(3)ALD517; 2007(4)ALT529
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This revision is directed against the docket order in E.P. No. 30 of 2005 in O.S. No. 85 of 2003, dated 5-9-2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, whereby learned Senior Civil Judge ordered for issuance of warrant of proclamation of sale of E.P. schedule property i.e. house, and publication in Vaartha daily newspaper of Nizamabad District Edition.2. Brief facts are that the revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder. The respondent instituted the suit being O.S. No. 85 of 2003 against the petitioner for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. Though the petitioner contested the said suit, the same was decreed. Despite the fact that there was a decree against the petitioner, he has not chosen to honour the said decree. Hence, the respondent filed E.P. No. 30 of 2005 in execution of the said decree. Though notice was sent to the petitioner in the said E.P., he has not chosen ...
G. Nagabhushanam and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD519
L. 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 Andhra Pradesh 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...
Aet Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP200; 2007(3)ALD760; 2007(4)ALT183
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company. It established laboratories and manufacturing units at Khazipally Industrial Area, Medak District. On its application, it was provided with HT-I category of power supply by the respondents some time in the year 2005. An inspection of the premises was conducted by the respondents in March, 2006. On the basis of certain observations made during the inspection, the respondents have changed the classification of the supply from HT-I category to HT-II and the differential amount was levied in the bill of November, 2006. The petitioner challenges the change of classification as well as levy of differential amount as being contrary to Clause 3.4.1 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is stated that no notice was issued before the classification was changed and that though the rules empower the demand of differential amount for a period not exceeding six month from the date of change of classification, the amou...
Alimineti Sadanandam Vs. Daripelly Narayana Charyulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD132; 2007(3)ALT624
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed a suit for partition of the plaint 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him.2. After the sixth defendant filed his written statement, revision petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint by introducing a plea that inasmuch as the agreement of sale dated 2-3-2005 relied on by the sixth defendant is not binding on him, the said agreement may be declared null and void, and filed another petition seeking leave of the Court to file a rejoinder. Both the said petitions were heard together and by a common order, the trial Court dismissed the petition for amendment and allowed the petition seeking leave to file a rejoinder. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the petition for amendment of the plaint, plaintiff filed this revision.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is ...
B. Kishanlal Khandsari Sugar Mills Vs. Dinkar Maharaj and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD259; 2007(3)ALT602
ORDERT.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Inasmuch as these two civil revision petitions emanate from a common judgment dated 17-1-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1999, they can be disposed of together.2. Civil Revision Petition No. 4261 of 2006 was filed by the tenant-petitioner assailing the concurrent findings of both the Courts below that he committed wilful default in paying the rents.3. Civil Revision Petition No. 5347 of 2004 was filed by the landlords assailing the finding given by the learned Senior Civil Judge inter aliain his order that the premises in question is a building coming within the definition of 'building' as given under the Act in question.4. R.C. No. 20 of 1991 was filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the tenant. His case was that the premises in question consisting of Khandsari Sugar Mill, three large sized godowns, thirteen RCC constructed rooms, two chowkidar sheds along with adjacent land, all put together bearing Municipa...
Putta Venkata Chalapathi Rao Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD92
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Adinarayana, Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Karuna, Counsel for 1st respondent.2. Sri Adinarayana, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the impugned order and would maintain that the appointment of Receiver being a harsh remedy, the learned Judge totally erred in making such an order and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the order.3. Per contra, Ms. Karuna, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent would contend that the 1st respondent is the Vysya Bank Limited, Muppavaram, and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances the order was made and it being a just and reasonable order, the same need not be disturbed.4. The 1st respondent, Vysya Bank Limited, Muppavaram, as Decree-holder filed E.P. No. 88/98 in O.S. No. 38/91 praying for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the mortgaged property sho...
M. Gita Devi Vs. Secretary, Department of Health and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD194; 2007(4)ALT133
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition presents an unfortunate saga of a mother. The grief suffered by the petitioner would be difficult even to imagine.2. The petitioner gave birth to a female child on 22.12.1999, at a private hospital in Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. She has decided to undergo Family Planning operation. Since the facility was available at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, she got herself admitted in that hospital, on 29.12.1999. On the same day, necessary operation was performed, and she was required to be in the hospital for two days, for post operational treatment. On the midnight of 30.12.1999, when she woke up, she found that the infant was missing. Even in such a precarious condition, she woke up and ran here and there, in Search of the missing baby. Her mother, who was attending on her, also desperately ran around the premises of the hospital, but in vain. A complaint was lodged with the concerned police station, as well the Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital, ...
D.R. Sridhar Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD128
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17124 of 2006, whereby she dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh (respondent No. 1) for shifting of the shop of M/s. R.R. Wines from Door No. IX/154, Ward No. 15, Kamma Street, Madanapalli to Door No. 4-8-2-E1, Ward No. 31, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalli.The Facts:2. In response to notification dated 27.5.2006 issued by Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, the appellant and respondent No. 3 applied for grant of licence for sale of Indian made foreign liquor/foreign liquor under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Rules'). The appellant gave highest bid of Rs. 24,45,000/- in respect of the shop situated in Ward No. 31, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. Respondent No. 3 g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »