Andhra Pradesh Court June 2007 Judgments
Manchaboina Guravaiah and anr. Vs. District Collector/Election Authori ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD220; 2007(6)ALT322
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The subject-matter of these two writ petitions is the election to the Managing Committee of the Fishermen Co-operative Society (for short 'the society'), Gudibanda, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 13360 of 2007.3. The elections for the Managing Committee of the society became due. The District Collector and Election Authority, the 1st respondent, issued order dated 4.6.2007, appointing the 3rd respondent, as the election officer. According to the schedule fixed by the 2nd respondent, the notification for the election was to be issued on 21.6.2007, and the election be held on 29.6.2007. The petitioners in W.P. No. 12717 of 2007 challenge the order dated 4.6.2007. They state that several members on the rolls of the society died in the recent past, and in some cases, resolutions were passed by the committee, to admit the legal heirs of the deceased members, as members. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD615; 2008(1)ALT28
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company. One of the objects, it has chosen to pursue, is, development and construction. It is said to have acquired land, in and around Guntur Town and developed the same. Gorijala Padtnaja and Gorijala Srinivasa Rao, claiming to be the Executive Director and Managing Director of the Company, have executed a sale deed dated 27-12-2003, registered as Document No. 12329/2003 in the office of the 3rd respondent, in favour of one Sri Pentyala Sree Ramulu and Jagarlamudi Lakshmamma. They have also executed Sale Deed Nos. 8348 and 8349/2004, dated 17-7-2004, in favour of Kovi Rama Murthy and Kovi Nagamani, respectively. Through these three sale deeds, vast extent of properties were transferred.2. It is stated that Sri K.L. Narasimha Rao, is the present Chairman and Managing Director of the Company. According to him, the sale deeds, executed by Smt. Padmaja and Sri Srinivasa Rao are without any authority, and are tainted with fraud....
Tag this Judgment!Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Department and ors. Vs. B. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALT53; (2008)IILLJ719AP
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 29.09.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Petition No. 12413 of 2000, where by he declined to interfere with award dated 26.02.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer of labour Court-III, Hyderabad (hereinafter described as 'the Labour Court') for re-appointment of respondent No. 1 as Mazdoor of equivalent post with service benefits from the date of filing of application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') i.e. 13.7.1995.2. Respondent No. 1 was engaged as daily wage Mazdoor in the Irrigation Department, Moosi Canal Sub-Division, Suryapet on 19.11.1963. His service was terminated with effect from 1.6.1967 after giving him one month's notice and retrenchment compensation. On 25.5.1976, he was offered re-appointment as Mazdoor, but he did not avail the same. Subsequently, on a request made by him, Divisional Executive Engineer, Nalgonda, vide his order No. C.A 10/6476-60, date...
Tag this Judgment!Namala Govindu Vs. B. Lakshmanna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT570
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision Petitioner filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage initially against the first respondent and later imp leaded the second respondent as a party to the suit on the ground that the second respondent purchased the mortgaged property from the first respondent. After the revision petitioner closed his evidence, the suit is posted for evidence on behalf of the respondents. Second respondent (Second defendant) filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Revision petitioner took an objection that the second respondent cannot be examined without the first respondent examining himself as a witness in the first instance. Initially, the revision petitioner filed a memo taking such objection and the respondents filed a counter memo. After considering the objections, the learned trial Judge gave a finding that the revision petitioner cannot compel the defendants as to which defendant has to be examined in the first instance. Subsequently, the revision peti...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pedda Subba Raju (Died) Per L.R. Vs. the Co-operative Tribunal and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD752
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18-10-1997 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in CTA No. 129 of 1996. The facts, that gave rise to the filing of this writ petition, may briefly be stated as under:The 4th respondent filed A.R.C. No. 3 of 1991 before the Co-operative Sub-Registrar-cum-Arbitrator, the 2nd respondent, against the 3rd respondent-Cooperative Housing Society (for short 'the Society') and the writ petitioner, in relation to allotment of a plot of land. It was pleaded that he paid a sum of Rs. 3,760/- up to the year 1980, under various heads, such as share amount, admission fee, and earnest money, and another sum of Rs. 8,538/-, on 03-09-1980 as advance of sale consideration for the plot, that may be allotted to him. He further pleaded that the Society had issued proceedings allotting plot No. 27, out of the land in Sy. Nos. 67, 68 and 68/2, at Tirumalgiri, Secunderabad, admeasuring 333 sq. yards for a total sale consideration of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellingi Narayanamurthy S/O. China Venkanna Vs. Chillingi Satyanaraya ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP25; 2008(1)ALD118
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 26-6-1998, this Court made the following order:Ground No. 1(a) to (c) is the substantial question of law to be gone into. Hence, admit.2. The substantial questions of law which had been pointed out and argued in elaboration by the Counsel on record Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana representing the appellant and Sri Chandra Shekar, representing the contesting respondents, are as hereunder:1. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the appellate Court are not vitiated for non-framing of proper points for determination as required by Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. Whether the agreement holder is not entitled to defend his possession under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 though title to the property had not been vested in him?3. Whether it is necessary under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to prove a document though the execution of it was admitted?3. This Court in C.M.P. No. 11138/98 on 26-6-1998 ordered:Status-quo as on today with regard to po...
Tag this Judgment!Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD150
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 18.2.1997, issued by the 2nd respondent, and the consequential letter, dated 20.4.1999, issued by the 1st respondent.2. The petitioner is a paper mill. One of the important raw materials for it is bamboo, which is exclusively supplied by the forest department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The contracts entered into for supply of bamboo are of two categories. Under the first category, the forest department itself cuts the bamboo to the required sizes, bundles the bamboo and stacks at a point, from which, the petitioner can transport. Under this category of contracts, the petitioner has to pay the selling price of the bamboo as well as the extraction charges. Under the second category of contracts, the petitioner undertakes the activity of cutting, bundling and stacking the bamboo. Therefore, it would be under obligation to pay selling price alone.3. In respect of the period between 1991-1992 and 1994-1...
Tag this Judgment!Dudekula Salabee Vs. R. Siva Sankar Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1053; 2008(1)ALD161
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. When Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Counsel, are requested to assist this Court, as amicus curiaes, they readily accepted.Heard both sides.2. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 30.1.1997, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool (for brevity 'the competent authority under the Act'), partly allowing W.C. No. 24 of 1995 filed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs. 60,502/-, as against the claim of Rs. 1,00,220/-, fastening the liability only against the first respondent therein, for the death of one Dudekula Mader Sab, during the course of his employment as Hamali.3. Appellant is the claimant, 'respondent No. 1 is the owner of tractor and trailor bearing Registration Nos.AP.21.U-186 and AP.21.U-187, respectively, and respondent No. 2 is the New India Assurance Company Limited, in the O.P., before the Court below.4. For the sake of conve...
Tag this Judgment!Apsrtc Vs. Boya Maddamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD646; 2008(3)ALT34
G. Chandraiah, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director-cum-Vice-Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad aggrieved by order dated 13.7.2001 made in OP No. 737 of 1999 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool.2. The respondents, claimants, filed their cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation already awarded by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 13.7.2001 in O.P. No.737 of 1999.3. Though the appeal and the cross-objections have been filed by the appellant and respondents respectively, the point involved is one and the same that whether the learned Tribunal awarded just compensation. In view of the same both, appeal as well as cross-objections, are disposed of by this judgment.4. It is the case of the petitioners-claimants before the learned Tribunal concisely was that on 9.9.1999 at about 10.30 a.m., one B. Rama Naidu, deceased, was going to his fields on a motor bike ...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vallabhani Surya Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2215
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 1.2.1996 in O.P. No. 370 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addition-al District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru ('the Tribunal'), wherein the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein was allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of death of their deceased daughter Vallabhaneni Amaravathi, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.2.1991. According to the claimants, on that day, when the deceased was going by walk from Nandamuru to Kovvur to attend school, a tractor bearing No. AP 37-U 148 and trailer No. AP 37-U 149 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against the deceased and ran over her near Cherukuri Rama Rao's cattle shed, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »