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.
T. Satyanarayana Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD589; 2007(3)ALT440
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was elected as President of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, the 2nd respondent herein, in the elections held in the year 2005. Prior to that also, he functioned as President of the society. On a complaint made by the Vice-President of the society, the 3rd respondent herein, the 1st respondent caused a preliminary enquiry, through the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Eluru. On the basis of a report dated 21-8-2006, submitted by him, the 1st respondent, the DCO-cum-Joint Registrar, ordered an inspection under Section 52 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). Soon thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 5-9-2006, under Section 21-AA of the Act, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be declared to have ceased to be the President of the society, on the basis of the allegations contained therein. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29-9-2006. Not bein...
Om Logistics Ltd. Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD500; 2007(4)ALT540
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a multi model transport agency, having its registered office at Delhi. It entrusted a consignment of automobile parts to a vehicle bearing No.MP-6E-3105, owned by one Sri Basudev Singh, to be transported from Faridabad to Chennai. The lorry was intercepted at Adilabad, on 27-2-2007, in the Adilabad District. On finding that the vehicle was loaded with some teak logs, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, the 2nd respondent, seized the vehicle, and placed it before the 1st respondent for necessary steps, under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner submitted an application before the 1st respondent for release of the automobile parts. Initially, the 1st respondent required the petitioner to pursue the matter with the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, through a separate letter, he called for the remarks of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner complains that, on account of the delay in release of the parts...
Alluri Satyavathi and ors. Vs. A.P. State Financial Corporation and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP314; 2007(4)ALD414
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 299 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) as against the order made in LA. No. 625 of 2005 in O.P. No. 307 of 2004 in the matter of Estate of Sri Alluri Narsimha Raju. The first respondent, A.P. State Financial Corporation, represented by its Senior Manager, Rajahmundry Branch, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, is the third party-petitioner who filed LA. No. 625 of 2005 in O.P. No. 307 of 2004 under Sections 263, 264 and 268 of the Act praying for revocation of the probate of the will dated 15-4-1991 issued by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, by order dated 24-7-2006 in O.P. No. 307 of 2004 on the ground that the first respondent herein i.e., the third party petitioner in the aforesaid LA. sanctioned credit facility to a tune of Rs. 42,00,000 : 00 and Rs. 8,35,000 : 00 for construction and running of cold storag...
B. Subba Reddy Vs. Superintending Engineer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD678; 2007(5)ALT409; 2007(4)ARBLR209(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant in these civil miscellaneous appeals and Ms. Rekha Prasad, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration representing the respondents in all these civil miscellaneous appeals.2. Since common questions of fact and common questions of Law are involved in all these matters, these civil miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. CMA No. 1112/2005 is filed as against an order made in I.A. No. 1339/2001 in O.S. No. 55/86 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Likewise, CMA Nos. 1113, 1131 and 1132 of 2005 are filed as against the orders made respectively in I.A. Nos. 1338/2001 in O.S. No. 53/86, I.A. No. 1340/2001 in O.S. No. 57/86 and I.A. No. 1341/2001 in O.S. No. 59/86 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.4. The respondents in these civil miscellaneous appeals moved the applications referred to above under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, her...
Vonkela Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbin ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD184; 2007(6)ALT309
B. Prakash Rao, J. 1. The petitioner herein who has been declared as Land-Grabber files this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records in LGA No. 1 of 1999 dated 30-9-1999 of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad dismissing the appeal and confirming the orders in L.G.O.P. No. 20 of 1990 dated 6-11-1998 on the file of the Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-District Judge, Nellore allowing the application filed by respondent No. 3 herein under Section 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and to quash the same.2. 3rd respondent who has filed L.G.O.P. No. 20 of 1990 against the petitioner herein is the applicant before the tribunal and he will be referred to as arrayed before the tribunal for the sake of convenience.3. The facts of the case which arise are that:In the application L.G.O.P. No. 20 of 1990 filed by the applicant-3rd respondent, it has been claimed that the Tahsildar, N...
D. Srikanth Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: [2007]79SCL511(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner is a guarantor and a Director of the 3rd respondent, a principal borrower, who had defaulted on a liability to the 1st respondent-bank. He assails a letter dated 9-3-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of an issue pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 308 of 2000.2. The 1st respondent filed O.A. No. 308 of 2000 before the Tribunal for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,79,21,207 against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is also a respondent to the O.A. since he had executed a guarantee agreement in respect of the loan availed by the 3rd respondent-company. According to the petitioner, some pleadings have been filed in the O.A. and the O.A. is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. In the O.A., the 1st respondent-bank...
Bogireddy Chandra Reddy and anr. Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD483; 2007(3)ALT489
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District (MRO), in dispossessing the petitioners from their lands in survey Nos. 297/11, 298/1 and 298/2 situated at Ramannapet village of Vetapalem Mandal in Prakasam District. A consequential direction is also sought to respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law.2. The petition allegations are as follows: The first petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.1.80 in survey No. 298/2 in 1978. The second petitioner was assigned Acs.1.13 in survey Nos. 298/1, 298/2 and 297/11. They were also given Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs) and they have been in possession and cultivating the same. They planted Mango, Sapota and Amta trees. On 08-2-2007 the MRO came with subordinate staff and started measuring the lands. The petitioners objected for the same. On enquiries, t...
Arvind Srimal and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2130
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in Crime No. 322 of 2006 of Ramgopal Police Station, Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 464, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B read with 34 of I.P.C.2. It is alleged in the complaint that the de facto complainant, A-1 and others are partners of a firm. They purchased one property admeasuring 908.33 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 27-1-1990. On 10-11-1981 they executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused to enter into an agreement to receive the sale consideration and to execute a sale deed in favour of third parties. Subsequently, on 25-2-1993 the GPA was cancelled by executing a revocation deed and a copy of the cancellation deed was sent to A-1 and he received the same through an acknowldgement. A-1 seized to be the GPA holder of the complainant and other partners. Some time prior to the filing of the complaint, they came to know that the first accused sold the above property to ...
Movva Rama Krishna Vs. D. Venkayyanayudu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD200
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. Dyumani, the learned Counsel representing appellant/ petitioner/plaintiff and Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondents/ respondents/defendants.2. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by an order made in I.A. No. 1985 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1062 of 2004 on the file of I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The appellant herein-petitioner-plaintiff filed the said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule lands admeasuring Acs.33.17 gts., comprising in Sy. Nos. 109/1, 112/3, 114/3, 115/3, 116/3, 117/3, 121/3, 122/3, 126 and part of 134 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.3....
Shrilekha Hire Purchase Finance Ltd. Vs. Tci Hu Ways Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD424; 2007(5)ALT798
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 and sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,12,470/- with interest thereon from the second respondent alleging that they misappropriated the amounts belonging to it and that the third respondent repaid the amount due from him. Subsequently, first respondent filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead the revision petitioner as third defendant in the suit alleging that the second respondent gave a car to be kept as security for the amount due from him till he repays the said amount, and that the revision petitioner, in its capacity as the financer of the said car, purchased by second respondent under a hire purchase agreement with it, is trying to interfere with the possession of the car. Though revision petitioner filed its counter contending that it is not either necessary or proper party to the suit, the trial Court by the order under revision, allowed the petition on the premise that it is not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »