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.
Karanam Visweswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC422
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the same transaction, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. Nos. 43 of 2007,41 of 2007 and 433 of 2006 on the file of the Special Prohibition and Excise Court at Srikakulam, filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short 'the Act'.3. The complainants are the wife and two sons of the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have issued three cheques to them and when they presented them in the Bank, they were bounced. Therefore, they filed the complaints.4. The petitioner contends that there is no obligation for him to pay the cheque amounts to his wife and two sons, but when he kept the cheques in the almirah, they were stolen by them and presented to the Bank, Therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed against the petitioner.5. When once a cheque is in the hands of the complainant, a presumption ...
G. Mallesh Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3394
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also learned senior counsel, Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing as Amicus Curiae.2. A learned single Judge of this Court while hearing the Criminal Revision Case made a reference to this Court on a doubt entertained by him about the correctness of the law laid down in R. Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. 2002 (2) ALT (Cri) 288 (AP).3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the parties that in fact, the judgment in R. Chandrakanth's case (supra) no longer holds good in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Handi Instant Foods, Chennai v. State of A.P. 2007 (1) ALD (Cri) 316 (AP) : 2007 Cri LJ 1112. Since the judgment, which was sought to be referred by the learned single Judge of this Court is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench (supra) and this Court is in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, we do not intend to go again into the questions raised.4. Paras 11, 14 and ...
Mavuri Manikyam (Died) by Lrs. and anr. Vs. G. Hanumanth Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD515
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. The legal heirs of the first defendant and the 2nd defendant are the appellants herein and the appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad AS No. 145 of 1992, dated 31-12-1996, under which the judgment and decree passed by the 9th Assistant Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No. 3185 of 1983, dated 20-4-1992, dismissing the suit was reversed and decreed the suit. The parties are referred as arrayed in the original suit.2. In the second appeal, the appellants raised the following questions of law as substantial questions of law arising out of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court:(1) Whether Ex.B-1, an undertaking signed by all the parties at the time of dissolution of partnership after settlement of accounts requires registration under Section 17(c) of the Registration Act?(2) Whether the plaintiff ceased to have any interest in the assets and other properties l...
Annapurna Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Special Officer and Compete ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD440; 2007(4)ALT459
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short 'the Act), was brought into existence, with a noble object of ensuring proper distribution of urban land and prevention of concentration thereof, in few hands. The validity of the Act was also upheld by the Supreme Court. No one can expect the implementation of such an Act to be a smooth affair. However, experience for the past three decades has only shown that the accomplishments under it are far from satisfactory. Apart from not being able to be a device to control the prices of urban land, it has only indirectly helped in steep rise thereof. Though the Act was repealed in the year 1999, it still haunts many citizens in the State of A.P.2. The petitioner is a cooperative housing society. Sri Jayagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Temple, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad, held an extent of Acs.17-19 gts, within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad. It was exempted from the purview of the Act, i...
Jayasree Financiers (Regd.) Vs. Bejawada Venkatachalapathy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD298
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 8.7.1998 this Court made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No. 22. Ground No. 2 of the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal reads as hereunder:The lower Court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. The lower Courts ought to have seen that the said provision can be invoked only at the time of trial when the document is being 'admitted in evidence' under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and not earlier. 3. The present second appeal is filed as against an order made in AS No. 66 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The said appeal was preferred as against an order made in an un-numbered Small Cause Suit of the year 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle.4. Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the order made by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would...
Jakka Gopal Reddy Vs. Neelakantam Venkata Krishna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD427; I(2008)BC382
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 11-8-1997 made the following Order:Admit on the question whether Ex. A.2 is a valid promissory note or not? 2. Sri Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant had further pointed out to the following substantial questions of law which are specified as hereunder:(1) Whether the document can be treated as a Promissory Note and whether it is enforceable in law -when no revenue stamps are affixed underneath the said document as per the provisions of Stamp Act?(2) Whether a transfer endorsement (Ex. A.1) receiving the consideration can be treated as a Promissory Note as held by Appellate Court?(3) Whether it is not mandatory on the part of the plaintiff (alleged holder-in-due-course) to prove that a document (Ex. A.2) alleged to have been transferred to him, is a promissory note and it is enforceable and the transfer endorsement (Ex. A.1) for consideration enables him to recover the amount mentioned therein?(4) Whether the p...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Kiran Kumar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD261
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same claim petition, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.2. During the minority of the claimant, his father as his guardian filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act') seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6311 alleging that when the claimant and his friend were proceeding on a scooter, the driver of the lorry of the first respondent due to his rash and negligent driving dashed the lorry against the scooter resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant and consequent permanent disability to him.3. First respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and in this Court.4. Second respondent, insurer, after obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Ac...
Perumalla Ramana Maharshi and anr. Vs. Musunuri Bala Tripura Sundaramm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP351
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents filed the suit seeking closure of the windows in the southern wall in the upstair building of the appellants shown as 'X' and 'V in the plaint plan alleging that those windows, opened by the appellants in their first floor, invade their privacy. The case of the appellants is that they had to pen the windows shown as 'X' and 'Y' for ventilation, and as there is no right of privacy the suit is not maintainable.2. In support of their case, the respondents examined the first respondent as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A1 to A9. In support of their case, appellants examined the first appellant as D.W. 1, and did not adduce any documentary evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia, on the ground no right of privacy is available to the respondents. Appeal preferred by the respondents questioning the dismissal of their suit by the trial Court was allowed by the judgment under appeal. Hence, the second appeal by the defendants in the suit.3. The second a...
S. Muddu Krishna and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer (Hg), A.P. Housing Bo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD779
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The questions involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, they are disposed of through common judgment.2. W.P. No. 8 256 of 2000 was filed, initially by 12 petitioners. At various stages, Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 have withdrawn. W.P. No. 8 963 of 2000 was filed by 4 petitioners, and petitioners 3 and 4 therein, have withdrawn.3. Petitioners are allottees of houses, constructed by the A.P. Housing Board, at Vizianagaram. The allotment was done through drawal of lots, and the allottees were inducted into possession, after the construction was completed. By the time the allottees were inducted into possession, the cost of the buildings was not finally determined. On the basis of tentative cost, arrived at by the respondents, installments were fixed, and the petitioners are paying the same, from time to time. The respondents issued letters of demand dated 11-3-2000, signed on 12-4-2000, requesting the petitioners to pay the amounts ...
Om Detective Security Services Vs. District Collector and Chairman, Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2007AP308; 2007(4)ALD381; 2007(4)ALT735
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the award of contract to supply manpower to the Rajiv Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa, (for short 'the 1st respondent'), in favour of M/s. N.M.R. & Consultants, Kadapa, (for short 'the 2nd respondent'), is challenged.2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh intended to establish the 1st respondent Medical College at Kadapa. Essentiality Certificate was issued and necessary permissions from NTR University of Health Sciences, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, were obtained. It was decided that the staffing pattern for teaching and non-teaching courses for the institute, shall be on regular, as well as on outsourcing basis, with effect from the Academic Year 2006-2007. A sum of Rs. 5,73,87,820/- was sanctioned, vide G.O. Ms. No. 562, dated 27.10.2005, to meet the expenditure towards salaries of the staff. A Committee, comprising of the District Collector, Kadapa, as Chairman, and Principal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »