Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Tammana Rajasekhar Vs. Palakurthi Kanyaka Parameswari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD82; 2007(6)ALT142
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against the order made in I.A. No. 283/2004 in O.S. No. 81/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience.2. The appellant/petitioner/plaintiff filed the said application praying for a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India, Main Branch, Machilipatnam, represented by its Chief Manager, Machavaram from bringing the schedule properties to sale in execution proceedings in O.A. No. 311/2002 on 24.3.2004 or any other further date pending disposal of the main suit in the interest of justice. The said application was resisted and the application was dismissed.3. The facts are not in serious dispute between the parties. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff that he filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale on the file of Senior Civ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. K. Vilasa Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD379
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1991 in O.S. No. 114 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam, wherein the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,367.70, was dismissed.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit with the following averments:The respondent-defendant being a businessman, running hotel complex, approached the appellant -plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 40,000/- for construction of a building and the loan was sanctioned. The respondent-defendant executed a registered mortgage deed, hypothecating the plaint schedule property on 12.1.1973 and also pledging the insurance policy bearing No. 37940760 assured for Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant availed loan in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in two installments and agreed to pay interest and principal in half yearly installments due by first April and first October of every year. The defendant was also required to keep the Life Insurance Policy i...
Sri Srinivasa Rice and Floor Mill, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP252; 2007(4)ALD649; 2007(4)ALT317; III(2008)BC503; [2007]138CompCas185(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Mr. Sriram, learned Advocate representing Sri D.V. Sithararn Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the respondents. At the request of the learned Counsel the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is disposed of by this judgment.2. A notice dated 1 -9-2006 was issued to the petitioners by the respondent-bank, being one Under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act'), intimating the petitioners that the financial assets/credit facility (extended to them) had become irregular, the debt was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA); that the outstanding liability as on 28-8-2006 was Rs. 68,62,272/- and that the petitioners should repay the same with further interest, incidental expenses and costs, failing which the bank would exercise its rights Under Section 13(2) of the Act and other applicable prov...
Koppu Sathiah and ors. Vs. Koppu Chandraiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD734
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri M. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that no specific finding as such had been recorded that the Decree and judgment of the Court of first instance are to be set aside. The learned Counsel also would submit that, just on the ground that proper findings had not been recorded on question of limitation, an order of remand was made, and the same is not just and proper. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the following decisions:(1) Kota Suryanarayana and Anr. v. Penumatcha Lakshmipathi Raju and Ors. : 2002(3)ALT652 .(2) P. Purushottam Reddy and Anr. v. Pratap Steels Limited : [2002]1SCR586 .While making elaborate submissions, the learned Counsel explained the scope and ambit of Order 41 R...
G. Venkatesh and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD830; 2007(3)ALT678
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The matter has been finally heard at the interlocutory stage at the consent of all the parties and the writ petition itself is disposed of.2. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.V. Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent.3. Petitioners are the successful tenderers and licensees in respect of shops at Sl. Nos. 57 and 58 of Gazette Notification dated 27.5.2006 situated at Ward Nos. 34 and 35 of Madanapalli Municipality and Mandal, notified by District Collector, Chittoor, who is the Auctioning Authority to auction the rights to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor/Indian Liquor by shops, under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shops and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Shop Rules'). The first petitioner, who is the licensee in respect of Shop No. 57 of Ward No. 34 of Madanapalli Muni...
Karri Nagamani and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1214; AIR2007AP241; 2007(4)ALD404
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act by the claimants, aggrieved by the order made in OAA No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad.2. The Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad is the respondent.3. The appellants-claimants filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on account of the death of the husband of the 1st claimant namely Karri Venkataramana, (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' for the purpose of convenience) in the alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train on 13-12-1999 at Elamanchili Railway Station.4. The 1st applicant had sworn to an affidavit narrating the facts averred and Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-copy of postmortem report, Ex.A3-copy of inquest report and Ex.A4-legal heir certificate also had been marked. AW.2, one Jagadeeswara Rao, an ey...
Pandit Dhareshwarji's Ashram School Vs. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and Anr. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD672; 2007(5)ALT375
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the compromise decree made by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy in OS. No. 22 of 1987, dated 12-2-1996.2. The recording of the compromise and passing of the compromise decree had been attacked on several grounds. Inasmuch as an objection relating to the maintainability of civil miscellaneous appeal had been taken, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits of such contentions.3. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order-43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience). It is needless to say that such order or making a compromise decree in pursuance of such order would not fall under any of the clauses in Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code.4. It is stated however that prior to 1976 there was such provision. However, it is brought to the notice of this Cou...
Chivuluru Michal Vs. Yadla Sambasiva Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALT38
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Ms. Vasireddy Vijaya, learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order dated 18-2-2003 made in LA. No. 778 of 2001 in OS No. 138 of 2000 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The said order reads as hereunder:Petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC prays to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31-1-2001 and allow this petitioner to participate in the suit.Petitioner's Counsel reported no instructions. Petitioner called absent. Petition is dismissed for default.3. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel representing the appellant would submit that apart from the application I.A. No. 776 of 2001 in OS No. 138 of 2000, which was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree, since there was some delay in moving the application, an application IA No. 778 of 2001 was filed for condonation of delay and on the same ...
K. Manoj Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ768
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Managing Director of Huzurabad Surya Real Estates Private Limited with its registered office at Vadera Complex, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.3. It is stated that certain written complaints have been lodged before the concerned Station House Officer alleging that the petitioner, having received certain initial deposit and instalments, refused to register the plots and postponed registration. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner was having dishonest intention to cheat the customers by not registering the plots. Accordingly, on various complaints filed by the customers, different cases in respective crime numbers have been registered by the Station House Officer, Saroornagar police station, for the offences under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. It is stated that nearly about 700 subscr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›