Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
D.N. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary, Bord ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD53
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Orders dated 22-7-1997 of the 5th respondent and also the Orders dated 3-12-1997 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to accept the withdrawal of resignation submitted by the petitioner and allow him to continue in service of the Border Roads Organization (BRO).2. It appears, petitioner on passing Union Public Service Examination in 1988 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the BRO. He joined the said Organization in May, 1990 and was posted to 86 Road Construction Company (Projects), Swastik and after rendering considerable length of service in the said project, he was transferred to 1443 Bridge Construction Company (BCC) Project, Udayak. While working at 1443 BCC he had applied for leave from 30-4-1996 to 10-6-1996 owing to some d...
Polasani Sucharitha Vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. Rep. by V. Satyanara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALT722
ORDERG. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The reference arose out of the order of the learned Single Judge for determination of issues arising out of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') in view of the contradictory judgments on the interpretation of the provision.2. In IA 1916 of 1999 in O.S. 282 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court at Karimnagar, the ex parte decree in the suit dated 22-07-1999 was requested to be set aside, which was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court passed an order on 21-12-1999 on perusing and considering the averments that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,112/- without prejudice to her rights and averments raised in the written statement on or before 21-01-2000 and ordered the petition to be called on the said date for compliance. The same is challenged in C.R.P. No. 379 of 2000 as being in excess of jurisdiction and materially irregular without following the precedents from the Apex Court and this Court. ...
Polasani Sucharitha Vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD293
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The reference arose out of the order of the learned Single Judge for determination of issues arising out of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') in view of the contradictory judgments on the interpretation of the provision.2. In I.A. No. 1916 of 1999 in O.S. No. 282 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court at Karimnagar, the ex parte decree in the suit dated 22-7-1999 was requested to be set aside, which was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court passed an order on 21-12-1999 on perusing and considering the averments that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,112/-without prejudice to her rights and averments raised in the written statement on or before 21-1-2000 and ordered the petition to be called on the said date for compliance. The same is challenged in CRP No. 379 of 2000 as being in excess of jurisdiction and materially irregular without following the precedents from the apex Court and this Court. W...
Kandula Hanumantha Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4051
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The sole-accused in S.C. No. 5/2003 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Trac Court), Ongole prepared this appeal against the judgment of the said Court dated 26-7-2005 convicting him for the offences under Sections 302, 324 and 506, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302, IPC; and simple imprisonment of six months, each, for the offences under Sections 324 and 506, IPC respectively.2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 10-9-2002 at about 3-30 p.m. near Ramalayam in Rajupalem village, he caused the death of one Kasula Kotrswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by stabbing him with knile. During the course of same transaction, he caused hurt to P.Ws. 2 and 3 and further threatened P.Ws. 1, 4 to 7 with dire consequences.3. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that the accuse...
Sanjay Kumar and anr. Vs. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD217
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The rejection of their petition to set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 28-3-2001 in O.S. No. 417 of 1999 as fraudulently obtained, by the order of the Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad dated 2-2-2007 led the writ petitioners to challenge the same as illegal.2. The factual background is that respondents 2 to 5 filed O.S. No. 417 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-12-1998 in respect of the premises M No. 21-7-822, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad against the petitioners and their mother and grandmother. The suit was contested by the defendants and was partly heard and the same was referred by the Court to Lok Adalat. On 28-3-2001, the matter came up before the Lok Adalat for settlement and on the basis of the settlement between the parties, the Lok Adalat passed the award. While recording the terms of settlement, the Lok Adalat also recorded ...
Jayavarapu Rajamma and ors. Vs. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ985; 2007(6)ALD306
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The question as to whether, in the facts and circumstances, the insurance company can be made liable for compensation in respect of the claims made by the owner or the legal representatives of the deceased as third party claims, is the subject-matter of the reference by one of us (Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao).2. The motor accident in question occurred when the owner/insured was travelling in the car along with his family members and his father died in the accident. The mother and two other sons of the deceased made the claim for compensation against the owner who himself was driving the car, the owner of the lorry and the respective insurance companies. The Tribunal while holding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the car, held that the father or the other family members of the insured will not fit within the ambit of third party as the insured and the deceased are living under one roof being father and son. The Tribunal accordingl...
Vinayaka Mini Modern Rice Mill Vs. Divisional Engineer (Operation), Ea ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT603
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a Modern Rice Mill at Unduru Village of East Godavari District. It was extended power supply through service meter No. 654, after an agreement, as required under the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (for short 'the GTCS'), was executed. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 22130 of 2006, alleging that the respondents have removed the service meter and shifted the transformer, without issuing any notice. The Writ Petition was opposed by the respondents, by alleging that on account of the default committed by the petitioner, the power supply was disconnected on 27-03-2005 and thereafter, the agreement was terminated vide orders, dated 26-08-2006, after complying with the formalities. Taking note of this submission, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 12-12-2006. W.A.No. 84 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, against the order passed in the Writ Petition, was dismissed, leaving it open to it, to assail the order of...
Yeradevireddi Venkataramanappa and anr. Vs. Nallapareddi Subbamma and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD32
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 11.11.2005 made the following order:In view of the substantial question of law 'as to whether on the facts and circumstances the Court below was right in exercising comparison of the signatures itself, admit the second appeal.2. Heard Sri Dilip Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Srinivas Bhatt, learned Counsel representing respondents 1 to 5.3. The parties hereinafter, for the purpose of convenience, would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as shown in OS No. 75 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif, Thamballapalle.4. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of Re-conveyance Agreement dated 11.4.1979 before the Court of first instance. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, the learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, DWs.1 and 2, marked Ex. A1 and Exs. B1 to B3, recorded findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are enti...
Gonnuri Ramachandra Rao and ors. Vs. Gorrela Suryachandra Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD596
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri H.S. Dora, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2.This Court on 22.6.1998 made the following order:Admit in view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No. 9 of Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. Notice.This Court also granted interim stay as prayed for in CMP No. l1123 of 1998.3. Under ground No. 9, the following substantial questions of law have been specified:1. Whether after having confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs case he made payments, under A-2 to A-4 is false, the Court has jurisdiction to decree the suit, as it positively shows he was not ready and tried to prove readiness and willingness by way of A-2 to A-4 which were rejected and his whole case is false?2. Whether specific performance of an agreement of sale can be granted to a plaintiff, who on the findings of both the Courts below, is that he come with a false case of payment...
K. Shyamsunder (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. N. Ramachandraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD333
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Facts in nutshell : The tenant claiming to be an agreement holder of the property in question instituted the suit O.S. No. 456/83 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying for the relief of specific performance directing defendants 1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed and 4th defendant also to join them in execution of the said sale deed so as to comply with the statutory requirements and to declare the sale deeds dated 20-10-1981 and 11-6-1982 executed by 5th defendant in favour of the 4th defendant as void, ineffective and inoperative and for certain other ancillary reliefs. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement virtually admitting the stand taken by the plaintiff. Defendants 4 and 5 filed separate written statements resisting the same. The learned Judge having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 and D.W. 2, marked Exs. A-1 to A-14 and Exs. B-1 to B-12 and ultimately decreed the suit in part ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »