Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Kovvuri Trinadha Reddy and ors. Vs. Eastern Power Distribution Corpora ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT580
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 3211 of 2006 was filed seeking to have the provisional assessment notice dated 17-02-2006, issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation of the Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When the matter came up for admission on 17-3-2006 the learned Single Judge, while examining the question, whether the provisions 6f the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered the inspecting officer to disconnect power supply if a person was found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, noticed an apparent conflict between two earlier Division Bench Judgments in Komarapu Chiranjeevulu v. Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd. Judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2004, dt.9-7-2004 and Mallikarjuna Polishing Industries v. Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Judgment in W.A. Nos. 452 and 477 of 2004, dt.11-3-2004 While the D...
Gunnam Babu Rao and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD826
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The two petitioners initially filed W.P. No. 549 of 2007 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the longstanding business as illegal and arbitrary. Their case was that they occupied a small piece of land on the road margin in Indrapalem Village and carrying out mutton business. The third respondent tried to dispossess them. In the said writ petition, Gram Panchayat filed counter-affidavit denying the petitioners' case. The Gram Panchayat also alleged that petitioners did not approach the Gram Panchayat for provision of alternative place. This Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitioners may approach the Gram Panchayat for necessary redressal.2. After disposal of the above writ petition, alternative accommodation was not provided to the petitioners. Alleging that the third respondent failed to implement undertaking given in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners filed the present writ petit...
Yeripalli Ramulamma Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD157
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Petitioner contested as a Member of Ward No. 8 of Z. Chintuva Gram Panchayat of Ramballi Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The election was conducted on 2.8.2006. The petitioner alleges that she secured ninety six votes, whereas the fifth respondent got ninety three votes, that the Returning Officer issued 'return of election' in Form No. XXVIII under Rule 62(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules'), declaring her as elected, and that in spite of the same, she is not being allowed to represent Ward No. 8, but the fifth respondent is permitted to represent Ward No. 8. Therefore, she filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to consider her as elected Member of Ward No. 8.2. Rules 62 to 64 of the Rules, promulgated vide G.O. Ms. No. 142 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Ele.) Department, dated 3.5.2006 read as under:62. Declaration of result of election and return of elect...
P. Vatsala Vs. T. Srisailam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD557
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-8-2003 in O.S. No. 1475 of 1997 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the appellant and for mesne profits was decreed and the claim for damages in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was dismissed.2. The respondents herein filed suit with the following averments:The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the premises bearing No. 1-5-176/35/22 (Plot No. 11-A), Bhagyalakshminagar Colony, Hyderabad, described in the plaint schedule. The defendant approached the plaintiffs for lease of the schedule premises for the purpose of residence cum school. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month for about two years with a stipulation to enhance the rent by 10% over two years. An agreement dated 27-3-1991 was entered into. The present rent for the suit premises in Rs. 4,235/- per month. The tenancy commenced from 1-6-1991...
Gulam Ghouse and ors. Vs. Madarse Jeelania Shama-ul-uloom Education So ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD435; 2007(4)ALT432
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 5-2-1993 said to be executed by the defendants.2. During pendency of the suit, the defendants filed I.A. No. 554 of 2006 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the documents, covered by Exs.A-6, A-8 and A-9, to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the first defendant on Exs.A-1 to A-5 and other documents and give an opinion. The lower Court while dismissing the said application observed that the earlier application, covered by I.A. No. 454 of 2006, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the signatures on the documents was dismissed by the lower Court. Therefore, the petitioners again filed the present I.A. to send the documents to the handwriting ex...
Vivek Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3138
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioners are A. 2 and A. 3 in C.C. No. 32 of 2006 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed for the offences under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').2. On 24-7-2004 at about 2 p.m. the Food Inspector, Flying Squad at Hyderabad visited the shop of the second petitioner at Somajiguda. The Food Inspector notices Corn-flour (Corn-meal) in a sealed polythene bag of 5 kgs. On enquiry, A. 1 disclosed that it was kept for using in making pizzas for human consumption. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Corn-flour for making it three samples and one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, and the analyst after testing the sample gave an opinion that the sample does not conform to the standards of total ash and alcoholic acidity and it is, therefore, adulterated. After receipt of the Analyst report, a...
Tirumani Venkata Narasamma and anr. Vs. Vodugu Mahalakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD285; 2007(6)ALT796
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The second appeal is coming under the caption of 'Dismissal' and that at 10.40 a.m., the matter was dismissed for default, but immediately Sri Rajasekhar representing Sri Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for appellants made a request that he is prepared to argue the matter and also made a request that the order dismissing the second appeal for default may be recalled. Sri Y.V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel representing Sri Chidambaram, learned Counsel for respondent, who is present in the Court, reported no objection and hence the said order is hereby recalled since the same was not signed by that time.2. Sri Rajasekhar learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants had pointed out that in the light of the substantial questions of law, which had been raised, the crucial question which may have to be decided is that when the agreement of sale as such is a void transaction, can the refund of amount be ordered in the facts and circumstances of the case. While elabo...
Md. Saleem Ur Rahman Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT834
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. There is a Wakf, by name Fathekhanpet Kalan Mosque, in Fathekhanpet Village, Nellore District. One Sri Mohammed Ali Saheb was the Muthawalli of the said Wakf. He died on 23.6.1967. Ever since then, the administration of the Wakf was being entrusted to different persons, through specific orders, by the A.P. Wakf Board. His son, by name Md. Saleem Ur. Rahman, filed an application on 5.10.2004 with a request to appoint him as Muthawalli, as successor of his father. Through proceedings, dated 22.5.2005, the A.P. Wakf Board appointed him as Muthawalli. Shortly thereafter, the Wakf Board issued proceedings, dated 18.12.2005 appointing a Managing Committee to the Wakf. WP No. 3239 of 2007 is filed by Md. Saleem Ur. Rahman, challenging the proceedings, dated 18.12.2005. The Managing Committee, in turn, filed WP No. 4571 of 2007 assailing the order, dated 22.5.2005.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 32...
M. Malyadri and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD550; 2007(4)ALT599
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16-03-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No. 2888 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2256 of 2007, whereby he declined the appellants' prayer for stay of notification dated 16-01-2007 issued by State Government under Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.2. Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because it is devoid of reasons. He further argued that even though the appellants and other residents raised several objections to the exclusion and inclusion of certain areas from Kandukuru Municipality, the concerned authority did not objectively consider the same and the State Government arbitrarily issued the final notification. Another argument of the learned Counsel is that the notification impugned in the writ petition is ultra vires the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Inc...
Akoti Krishna Vs. Kola Chinna Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD155
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 27-3-2001 passed in MVOP No. 414 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.2. The appellant is the claimant in MVOP No. 414 of 1999 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident took place on 14-12-1998 involving APSRTC Bus No. AP 10 Z 1057 driven by the first respondent. It is the case of the claimant that while he was going from his house to Bondapalli Bus Stop on the left side of the road and when he reached the Bus Stop, the aforesaid bus coming from Parvathipuram side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without even blowing any horn or following traffic rules dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries all over the body.3. The claimant himself filed the claim petition t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »