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.
H. Ravi Prakash Reddy Vs. R.K. Krishna Murthy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1265; 2007(5)ALD77; 2007(4)ALT155
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation against the revision petitioner and the second respondent for the injuries suffered by him due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed his counter contesting the claim. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the validity of insurance policy taken out by the revision petitioner expired, and as insurance for the bus involved in the accident was not in force by the date of accident, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent.2. Revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend his counter by taking a plea that the Tribunal constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim inasmuch as the vehicle was not insured by the date of accident. The Tribunal by...
Guanaganti Bala Krishnamma Vs. K. Aadi Seshaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD423; 2007(4)ALT161
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 420 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of mortgage. The suit was decreed ex parte on 10-2-2004. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A. No. 566 of 2004 for final decree. It was allowed and E.P. was filed, to enforce the decree. The house of the petitioner was attached and it was sold in an auction conducted by the Court. The petitioner states that she came to know about all these proceedings, only at a time, when the delivery of possession of the property was to be effected.2. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, together with I.A. No. 764 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay. She also filed E.A. No. 77 of 2006 for stay of further proceedings in the E.P. The executing Court ordered notice in the E.A. Since the saie of the property wa...
Balaji Surgicals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT519; 2009(233)ELT39(AP); (2008)15VST473(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order passed in the revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-the first respondent on 22-12-2006. This writ petition was entertained basically on the ground that the petitioner had claimed that the order in the revision was passed without hearing him. Counter-affidavit has been filed, in which it has been stated that the petitioner was given ample chance to be heard. Since there is an affidavit and counter-affidavit with regard to the controversy whether the petitioner had been given fair chance or not, we are not entering into that controversy. In this view of the matter we would have directed the petitioner to approach Appellate authority, where all these questions could be addressed, but the petitioner submitted that it would serve no purpose to go before the Appellate authority, because even on merits, the order passed in the revision cannot sustain.2. Heard learned Counsel for parties on merits.3. The controvers...
Andal Raghavan Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD661; 2007(4)ALT509
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Tallamudunurupadu Village of Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District (hereafter called, the subject temple) is the religious institution registered and classified under Section 6(b) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). Historically, it is about 200 years old temple established by Sriman Raghavacharyulu, and statedly temple is being managed by his successors. After coming into force of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2002 (A.P. Act No. 27 of 2002), the respondent herein by proceedings in R.C.No.B5/2006, dated 17-06-2006, decided that Smt Andal Raghavan - petitioner herein; is member of founder's family. Be it noted, by reason of Section 17 of the Act as amended by Amendment Act No. 27 of 2002, the member of the family of the founder shall be appointed as one of Board of Trustees and under Section 21 (b) of the Act, such member shall...
S. Govindarajulu, D.J., Now Working on C.D. as Chief Legal Advisor Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD421; 2007(3)ALT145
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The conflict is commonplace, the facts simple and the law clear; and yet a combat. This writ petition is another illustration of a recurring morbidity in our public services, a dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Despite over abundance of precedential guidance, casual administrative practices engender such disputes with regularity. Negligent administrative handling of this area festers creative claims to seniority. The dispute in this writ petition is commonplace. Such disputes in several services including Higher Judicial Service are a continuing phenomenon. We record yet another opinion on an oft visited theme.2. In substance, the petitioner seeks determination of his seniority status above respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of District and Sessions Judges Grade-II (in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service) governed by Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called the And...
Abeda Begum and ors. Vs. Rajput Anasuya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD488
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 166 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Family Court, Secunderabad are the appellants in this appeal.2. Respondent filed the suit on 9-12-1999 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 18-10-1998 executed in her favour or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- and damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization. After contest by the appellants the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent directing the applicants to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- with costs, together with interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization.3. Aggrieved by that decree defendants preferred this appeal and paid Court fee of Rs. 3,426/- against the granting of a decree for Rs. 1,00,000/-against them. Registry took objection that the Court fee paid is not correct and that appellants have to calculate interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realiza...
Chidri Ashabee Vs. S. Sulochana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD745; 2007(4)ALT209
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner filed OS. No. 2 69 of 1999, in the Court of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of a house bearing No. 1-4-308/19, admeasuring 200 Sq. yards, at Siddiqi Bazaar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, fully described in the schedule. Apart from that relief, she claimed a decree for Rs. 36,000/- for use and occupation of the suit premises and for Rs. 20,000/- towards value of the superstructure, and further damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, till the date of delivery of possession. The respondents resisted the suit and filed a written statement. The trial of the suit is in progress.2. The petitioner filed IA. No. 163 of 2005 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit her to amend the plaint, to incorporate the plea of delivery of possession and for cancellation of as many as 5 sale deeds. Apart from that, she also filed I.A. No. 162 o...
S. Ramesh and ors. Vs. Dr. Mohammed Imam Hannorai and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALT10
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The learned portfolio Judge of Hyderabad District ordered notice before admission on 16-6-2006 in CRP No. 2704 of 2006 and directed to list the CRP along with CMA No. 4586 of 2004 and granted stay of eviction for a limited period and subsequent thereto on 30-6-2006 Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel, entered appearance and the same had been recorded and the stay was directed to be continued and a further direction was made to list the matter after six weeks along with CMA No. 4586 of 2004. On 25-8-2006, the learned Judge made the following order:Admit. Post for hearing at an early date along with CMA No. 4586 of 2004. Stay to continue.Subsequent thereto on 26-10-2006 in CMP No. 6430 of 2006 it was recorded:The petitioners are senior citizens. Post the CRP for final hearing immediately after Sankranthi vacation 2007.That is how both these matters, CRP and also CMA referred to supra, are coming before this Court for final hearing.2. Facts in brief:--The rev...
Apsrtc Staff Co-op. Housing Construction Society Ltd. Vs. Govt. of A.P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD468; 2007(4)ALT521
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In these writ petitions, the orders passed by the Government under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') are challenged. With slight variations, as to details, the cause of action, in both the writ petitions, is broadly similar. Petitioners are Co-operative Housing Societies. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in the two writ petitions are referred as 1st and 2nd petitioners, respectively.2. Encouraged by the policy of the Government, declared through G.O. Ms. No. 136, dated 28-01-1981, which provided for transfer of declared surplus land, under the Act, in favour of Co-operative Housing Societies; 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.18.68 cents in R.S.No. 174, of Gollapudi village; and the 2nd petitioner purchased 2738 sq. meters of land in R.S.No. 66/1, of Bhavanipuram Revenue Village, for the benefit of their members. Both the villages, referred to above, are part of Vijayawada Urban Agglom...
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2692
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Revision Case is preferred by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, against the order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 15-12-2006 in Cri. M. P. No. 3038 of 2006 in Cri. M. P. No. 2772 of 2006 in F. No. VIII/48/03/2006 HRU of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad.2. The respondent herein was a businessman. He was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act'). On 21-7-2006, the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, raided the premises of M/s. Hy-Gro Chemicals Pharmatech Private Limited and found certain contraventions in the manufacture and supply of the Dextropro-poxyphene Hydrochloride (DPP HCL) which is a narcotic drug and thereafter they found 250 kgs. of Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride was noticed when compared to the book balance and the Managing Director of the company admitted that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »