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.
C. Veerappa Vs. the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration and
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD659
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the notice issued by Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad (respondent No. 2) under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') can be treated to have been duly served on the appellant is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by him against order dated 13-10-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20812 of 2006.2. The appellant owned various parcels of land in Survey Nos. 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 76 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On 15-9-1976, he filed declaration under Section 6 of the Act. After due enquiry, respondent No. 2 issued draft statement on 25-11-1993 and sent the same to the appellant along with notice under Section 8(3) of the Act so as to enable the latter to submit objections. The notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due and was duly received on 13-12-1993. However, no objection w...
K. Alivelamma Vs. K. Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALT430
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under Rule 7 of Order 9 CPC to set aside the ex parte order passed against her, second defendant in a suit for specific performance preferred this revision.2. The case of the revision petitioner is that though she received summons in the suit, as her sons were looking after all the cases filed in various courts against her, she thought that her sons would look after this suit also and about 10 days prior to the filing of the petition she came to know that she was set ex parte as she did not file her written statement, and as she is informed that she has a good case and has to tile a written statement contesting the suit, the ex parte order passed against her may be set aside and she may be given an opportunity to file her written statement and contest the suit.3. First respondent (plaintiff) opposed the application on the ground that the petition is got filed by the sons of the revision petitioner to drag on the proc...
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.V. Engineering Cons ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALD851; 2007(5)ALT34
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The revision petitioner, first defendant in O.S. No. 26 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore, being aggrieved of the order dated 23 rd day of October, 2006, had preferred the present civil revision petition.2. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel representing the petitioner-defendant No. 1 and Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned Counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff.3. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and first defendant for the purpose of convenience.4. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 26 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for recovery of damages for the vehicle based on insurance policy. The learned Judge in nutshell having referred the respective pleadings of the parties after referring to Clause 7 of the policy in question, came to the conclusion that since the liability under the policy is not disputed and the dispute is only with regard to laches and also correc...
Sri Padmavathi Rice and Floor Mill Vs. Samudrala Venkateswara Rao and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD271
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent and Nulu Srirama Murthy, husband of the deceased second respondent, were having 50% share in the rice mill being run in the name and style of M/s. Sri Padmavathi Rice and Flour Mill. First respondent agreed to purchase 50% share of Nulu Srirama Murthy under an agreement of sale dated 1-1-1984 for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and paid Rs. 58,900/-to Nulu Srirama Murthy towards sale consideration. Subsequently, Nulu Srirama Murthy died on 13-3-1985. So, first respondent served a notice on the deceased second respondent, the widow of Nulu Srirama Murthy on 1-5-1985 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour by her husband or to refund the amount paid by him to her husband with interest at 24% per annum. As second respondent did not respond, he filed O.S. No. 34 of 1985 seeking specific performance of the agreement in his favour, making the 4th respondent, the foster daughter of Nulu Srirama Murthy and deceased second responde...
G. Basava Reddy Vs. Smt. K. Parvathamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD730
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the sale proceedings of the land in S. Nos. 62, 63, 450, 451 and 334 and the house situated therein at Juntapally village (hereinafter referred to suit property) for recovery of arrears of the excise dues from herfatherare null and void and are not binding on her, and for a consequential injunction restraining respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant from dispossessing her from the suit property which was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the third defendant in the suit preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer the parties to the appeal as they are arrayed in the trial Court.2. Plaintiff (1st respondent) instituted the suit initially against the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Collector (Excise) Hyderabad District (first defendant) and the Tahasildar Tandur (second defendant). Subsequently she filed I.A. No. 489 of 1974 to add the appellant as third d...
Gopireddy Andhra Pratap Reddy Vs. Pochana Sudarshan Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD297
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since these two proceedings arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Appellant in the second appeal is the revision petitioner in the revision petition. He filed the suit for partition of his l/25th share in the plaint schedule properties and for other consequential reliefs which was dismissed by the trial Court and also the first appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer to the parties to these proceedings as they are arrayed in the trial Court.3. Defendants 1 to 6 are the children of Konda Reddy son of Obulamma. Defendants 8 and 10 are the brother and sister respectively of the 7th defendant. Plaintiff and defendants 11 to 14 are the children of Chinna Venkatamma, sister of the 7th defendant. 9th defendant is the daughter of Lakshumma wife of the 16th defendant. For the purpose of clarity, Ex.A.I Geneology Tree is appended to this judgment. The case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that the plaint...
Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)17VST263(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The assessment made under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act') has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the assessment has been made on the strength of G.O. Ms. No. 955, Revenue (CT II), dated May 11, 2005, which is ultra vires Section 3 of the Act itself.Section 3(1)(c) of the Act reads as under:The rate of tax to be notified by the Government in respect of any commodity shall not exceed the rate specified for that commodity under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 or the notifications issued thereunder:Provided that the tax payable by the importer under this Act shall be reduced by the amount of tax paid, if any, under the law relating to general sales tax in force in the Union Territory or State, in which the goods are purchased.2. In terms of this provision, the rate of tax notified should not exceed the rate applicable to the commodity under the APGST Act, which was repeale...
Katkuri Narsimha and Four ors. Vs. Kadari Sathaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD199
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellants and Sri B.N. Swamiji, learned Counsel representing respondent.2. This Court on 8.12.1997 made the following order:In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No. 6(a) of the Grounds of Appeal, the Second Appeal is admitted.The said ground No. 6(a) reads as hereunder:Whether, in the absence of permission from the Tahsildar under Section 47 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, unregistered sale deed under Ex. B1 in favour of the defendants confers any title and what isthe effect of and whether the sale is void.3. Incidentally the counsel representing appellants also had pointed out to yet another substantial question of law i.e.,Whether ex parte finding in a simple suit for injunction will operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession.4. Sri Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appell...
Sri Rama Mahal, Srikalahasthi and ors. Vs. R. Rajasekhar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD267; IV(2008)BC19
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1999 in OS No. 36 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, wherein the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000 with interest at 24% per annum was decreed and the counter-claim made by the appellants herein to pass a decree in their favour for a sum of Rs. 1,05,526/- was dismissed.As the two appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree and between the same parties, they are heard together and they are being disposed of this common judgment.2. The respondent-plaintiff in both the appeals, filed suit OS No. 36 of 1997 with the following averments:The plaintiff was carrying on business in exhibition of motion pictures. The first defendant is the partnership firm for which the 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner and defendants 3 to 5 are the partners. The 3rd defendant is the wife, defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of 2nd defendant and they const...
Syed Sadak Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Deepthi Builders and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD461; 2007(6)ALT4
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since all these proceedings are interconnected, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in CRP No. 633 of 2004.3. In the suit filed by the first respondent seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property he filed two petitions (i) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the revision petitioners and their agents and servants or any persons claiming through them, from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property i.e. land measuring 1,012.12 sq.yards in S. No. 43 at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad and (ii) under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit half share of the revision petitioner in the arrears of rent and future rent in respect of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »