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.
Boddula Rajesham Vs. Mahmooda Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALT416
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8-9-2006 in I.A. No. 1142 of 2006 in O.S. No. 56 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.2. The Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit which is filed by the respondents herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by the defendant/Revision petitioner claiming that the suit property forms part of 585 sq.yards of land in Sy. No. 1347/C purchased by him under a Registered Sale Deed dated 18-11-1976 and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While the trial was under progress, the defendant/ Revisioa petitioner filed a counter-claim on 21 -11 -2005 alleging that pending the suit the plaintiff had forcibly occupied the suit schedule property. Thus, he made a counterclaim for recovery of the possession of the property in question. The said counter-claim was dismissed by ...
M.A. Farooq and ors. Vs. Selection Grade Secretary, Hyderabad Agricult ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP204; 2007(4)ALD123; 2007(3)ALT644
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioners challenge the tender notice dated 18-12-2006, issued by the respondent, in so far as it relates to the grant of licence for sale of hay in the Gaddiannaram Market Yard, as packing material.2. Petitioners state that they have been supplying the hay in the fruit market yard, when it was functioning at Mojamjahi Market, and after it was shifted to Gaddiannaram; for the past several decades. According to them, the proposal of the respondent to issue licence for supply of hay is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'), and violative of their fundamental right, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They complain about discrimination also, in the sense that the respondent has not chosen to regulate the supply of other packing material, such as wooden boxes, cartons, waste paper etc.3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit. Apart from denying the allegat...
Kasireddy Bhaskara Reddy Vs. Principal Secretary to Government (Revenu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT759
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. A letter dated 3-7-2006 by one Kasireddy Bhaskar Reddy, son of late K. Megha Reddy who claimed to be the Chairman, Joint Council of Chandanagar Colonies Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the representationist') was treated by this Court as a writ petition on Public Interest. Through the said letter, the representationist sought for the following relief:1. Cancel the G.O.Rt. No. 1251 dated 21-10-2002, Home (General-A) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.2. Cancel the license of the said theaters.3. Remove all illegal encroachments in the F.T.L. area of the Miyapur patel Cheruvutank.4. Take action on all the officials who have given N.O.C.5. Pass such other order or orders, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'2. In the letter petition though the representationist made allegations relating to encroachments of tank area of as many as 11 tanks, from the relief claimed by the petitioner as ...
Major P.T. Choudary Vs. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD675; 2007(4)ALT136
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. In a suit for permanent injunction, an application being I.A. No. 297 of 2006 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Order 22 Rule 10 and under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of third parties to implead them as plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 in the suit. It was contended by them that they purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed on 15-12-2005 and took its possession on the same day. The original plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for injunction restraining them from interfering, disturbing and encroaching upon the suit schedule property and an ad interim injunction had been granted in their favour in I.A. No. 392 of 2005 on 6-7-2005. They contended that since they have come into the shoes^ of plaintiffs by virtue of a sale deed, therefore, they were necessary parties and should be added as plaintiffs. The defendants! contended that the petition was not maintainable as the remedy of perpetual injunction was in persona and it w...
Perumalla Mallesham Vs. Chennamaneni Sumanya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP177; 2007(3)ALD199; 2007(5)ALT59
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-3-2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S. No. 557 of 2004 upholding the objection raised by the defendant as to stamp duty payable on the suit document dated 19-5-2003.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- allegedly due from the defendants/respondents herein. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the husband of the 1st defendant by name Kamalakar Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff on 19-5-2003 and executed a document on the same day agreeing to pay the said amount on demand. It is also pleaded that the said Kamalakar Rao issued a cheque bearing No. 675910 dated 19-5-2003 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards collateral security. However, he evaded payment of the said amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and recently he died intestate leaving behind the defendants, being his wife a...
P. Chiranjeeva Chary and ors. Vs. Model Chit Corporation Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT16
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-04-2006 in I.A. No. 419 of 2006 in O.S. No. 108 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar District.2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit, which was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,62,817/- allegedly due from the defendants under a chit transaction. A written statement was filed contesting the suit claim and after issues were settled, the Assistant Manager of the plaintiff company got himself examined as P.W.1. While the suit was coming up for the evidence of defendants, I.A. No. 419 of 2006 was filed by the defendants under Order XVI Rule 21 CPC with a prayer to summon the Managing Director of the plaintiff company namely A. Krishna Murthy to give evidence before the Court to prove the existence of the plaintiff-company. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 25-04-2006 holding that in the absenc...
P. Venkateshwar Vs. G.P.R. Chits and Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD879; 2007(5)ALT325
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed the suit for recovery of money against the respondents 2 to 4 and the revision petitioner, alleging that the revision petitioner stood surety and for the amount due to it by the second respondent, in that suit revision petitioner filed IA No. 509 of 2006 to summon the Senior Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation, Hyderabad, to produce the records relating to the second respondent (principal debtor) to establish that the second respondent has capacity to repay the amount claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff in the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the financial soundness of the principal debtor is not a criteria to be taken into consideration in a suit for recovery of money filed by the creditor against the principal debtor and the sureties. Hence, this revision by the second defendant/surety.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that inasmuch as the revision pe...
G.S. Prabhakar Vs. Joint Collector, Sangareddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD9; 2007(2)ALT514
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for the respondents.2. These two writ petitions are filed questioning the same impugned proceedings, dated 27-01-2007, of the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy cancelling the assignment of the lands made in favour of the alleged seven freedom fighters, each to an extent of Ac. 5.00 totalling an extent of Ac. 35.00 situated at Ameenpur village, Patancheru mandal, earlier assigned by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patanacheru vide proceedings No. B/96/2005, dated 14-05-2005, and directing to resume the above said lands immediately. As the questions involved in both the writ petitions are similar they are being disposed of by a common order.W.P. No. 2163 of 2007:3. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru Mandal has assigned Ac.5.00 of land in Sy. No. 343 of Ameenpur village, Patancheru mandal in favour of on...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. District Election Officer and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD833; 2007(3)ALT638
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) (the Corporation) is the petitioner. It impeaches the directions by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to issue of necessary instructions to the subordinate Officers/Heads of Offices of the LIC to spare the services of staff members for appointing them as Enumerators, Designated Officers and Booth Level Officers for the specified Assembly Constituencies, for revision of electoral rolls, as and when requisitioned by the concerned Electoral Registration Officers/Deputy Municipal Commissioners and Additional Commissioners. There being no response and timely response by the Corporation to the requisition/directives of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, notices were issued on 4-12-2006 and thereafter, reiterating the directives, calling upon the Senior Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Corporation, Secunderabad, Divisional Office, Hyderabad to furnish a list of staff working under the addressee's control, within the stipulated time and inti...
Vinnapala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rao and ors. Vs. Addanki Narayan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP213
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 19-4-1991 preferred the present appeal. Respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, died and the legal representatives, were brought on record. Appellants 5 and 6, the then minors, were declared as majors by virtue of an order made by this Court dated 27-11-2006 in A.S.M.P. No. 2335 of 2006. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred, to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S. No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram.3. The plaintiff, Addanki Narayana Murthy, who is no more as already referred to supra, filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share and to grant Rs. 1,833-33 paise as past profits from 10-9-1985 to 1-10-1988 as against the defendants and for future profits and costs. The learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »