Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Mattaparthi Satyanarayana Vs. Panchayat Samithi, P. Gannavaram and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD197
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M. Giri representing Sri M. Sivananda Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Ms. E. Kavitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration.This Court on 26.9.2003 made the following order:Admit.The following substantial questions of law arise for decision and consideration in this second appeal.1. Whether in the absence of a specific covenant for payment of interest though payment is withheld unjustly (as concurrently found by the lower Court as well as the lower appellate Court), the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest from the date the amount is payable till the date the suit is launched by applying the provisions of Interest Act?2. Whether the absence of interest clause in a covenant would be a hurdle for the Courts to grant interest even when the Courts concurrently held that the withholding of payment is unjust?2. The only question, which had been argued in elaboration by both Sri Giri, the learned Counsel representing th...
Mohd. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Mustafa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD133; 2008(1)ALT478
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 40 of 1998 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit schedule property i.e., a mulgi is a wakf property attached to the Mosque and for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit mulgi.2. The plaintiff is one of the persons interested in the wakf property as defined under Section 3(k) of the Wakf Act. He filed the present suit by contending that the then Muthawalli sold away the property without obtaining sanction either from the Court or from the Wakf Board, therefore, the sale transaction is not legal and it shall be declared as the property of the wakf even after execution of the sale deed. The second defendant, who is the purchaser of the suit property, contended that in 1344 Fasli, a sanction order was obtained by the then Mutawalli from the ecclestical department of Nizam Government and on the basis of the said sanc...
G. Venkataram Rao Vs. Syed Abdul Rasheed
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD253; 2008(1)ALT711
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 10-11-1998, this Court made the following order:In view of the substantial questions of law framed in ground No. 6 in the memorandum of grounds of the Second Appeal, this Second Appeal is admitted.The following are the substantial questions of law which had been raised in the said ground No. 6 of memorandum of Second Appeal:(i) Whether a suit is not maintainable even against an impleaded defendant just because the suit was filed against the wrong defendant (dead person) for lack of knowledge?(ii) Whether the entries in Revenue Records coupled with the declaration filed under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act and the computation of the land to the holding is not sufficient to establish the factum of possession for the lands in dispute?(iii) Whether the Courts below were right in construing the possession of persons claiming through the plaintiff as that of strangers and is not accountable for claiming adverse possession?(iv) Whether the Cour...
Shreya Pet (P) Ltd. Vs. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT54
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This is a petition by M/s Shreya Pet (P) Limited, which is admittedly a small-scale industrial unit, for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to extend the benefit of 25% power rebate in terms of the policy contained in G.O.Ms. No. 108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20.05.1996.2. The above mentioned prayer of the petitioner is founded on the following assertions:(1) that it is engaged in the manufacture of pet preforms;(2) that it was provided electricity connection with effect from 26.08.1999;(3) that it started regular commercial production from 28.10.1999;(4) that General Manager, District Industries Center, Ranga Reddy District issued eligibility certificate dated 25.02.2000 entitling it to claim 25% rebate in power tariff for a period of three years, but the authorities of the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (respondent No. 1) rejected its claim vide letter No. SE/O/N/HYD/AO(R)/CRS/JAO/ 25% rebate/D. No. 780...
Synergies-doo Ray Automotive Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Co ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ415AP
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Order dated 2-5-2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.70 of 2005 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.2. Petitioner is the Management. Respondent No. 2 is the workman. 3. It appears, 2nd respondent, while working as an Operator, was dismissed from service by an Order dated 24-3-2005. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.70 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court while examining the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management, by an Order dated 2-5-2007, gave a finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated rendering it invalid, mainly on the ground that before the 2nd respondent-workman could submit his explanation to the charge sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed, which is not permissible under law. Challenging the s...
K. Ravindranath S/O Late Venkateshwar Rao Vs. A.P. Land Reforms Appell ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD286; 2008(1)ALT667
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the claimant in CC.No.1019/NZD/75 of the Land Reforms Tribunal Bandar, Krishna District.2. The claimant claimed that he is. the adopted son and therefore, he is entitled to a share in the properties of the delcarant in addition to the share in the properties of his natural father. One Kadiyala Venkateshwara Rao (hereinafter called as declarant) filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). The Primary Tribunal, through its order, dated 20.05.1977 held that the family unit possessed 2.7016 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area. When the appeal was preferred, the appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Primary Tribunal for fresh disposal with regard to the agreement of sale pleaded by the daughter of the declarant by name Smt. Nimmagadda Swarooparni. The Primary Tribunal, after remand of the case, conducted the enqui...
Y. Venkata Sesha Reddy S/O Yeturi Sankara Reddy Vs. Chembeti Kousalyam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD561
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. In this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, the question which has been referred to, for decision on the importance of the question involved, is,Whether Section 16 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 is relevant to be taken into consideration or whether the relevant provisions governing the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 to be taken into consideration for the purpose of entertaining a suit?2. Briefly, the facts, as referred to by the learned Single Judge, are that the petitioner, who is the defendant, sought to assail the orders passed in an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.691 of 2007 in O.S.No.142 of 2007, dated 08.05.2007, on the file of the Ill-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, dismissing the application filed by him purported to be under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to return the plaint in the said suit on the ground that...
Agi Glaspac Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct)-iv
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST9(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. All these writ petitions raise common questions of law. Hence, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. These three writ petitions have been filed by the same assessee. Writ Petition Nos. 19492 and 19493 of 2006 have been filed for different assessment years challenging the orders of assessment made by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Writ Petition No. 25597 of 2006 is arising out of the orders impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 19492 and 19493 of 2006 by the authorities below.3. W.P. Nos. 19492 and 19493 of 2006 : The assessee had claimed input tax credit on Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) during the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 purchased by him locally from the public sector companies. The controversy is whether LSHS and LPG are the products falling under Section 13(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') read with Rule 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rul...
V.V.N.M. Raju Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD162
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 4.80 cents of land in Sy. No. 121/3 of Vedulanarva Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, through a sale deed dated 8.6.2005 from Sri B. Venkata Ramana. The vendor of the petitioner, in turn, was assigned this land on 24.3.1993 in his capacity as an ex-serviceman.2. The 2nd respondent issued memo dated 22.6.2005 to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam-the 4th respondent, directing that the land in Sy. Nos. 120, 121/1 to 10, 128/1 to 3 of Vedulanarva Village, admeasuring Ac. 15.55 cents shall be treated as prohibited properties (Government lands) so as to prevent further registrations. The petitioner challenges the said memo.3. The petitioner contends that his vendor was assigned land in Sy. No. 121/3 in his capacity as an ex-serviceman and in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1117 dated 11.11.1993, the alienation made in his favour after 10 years from the date of assignment, is permissible and legal.4. The 5th re...
P. Bhushaiah Vs. District Co-operative Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD385
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner functioned as Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Lingamguntla of Guntur District. In the year 1990, one Mr. D. Bhadmchalam, the 4th respondent, was functioning as its President. The District Co-operative Officer, the 1st respondent, ordered inspection under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), against the said society, on the basis of a report submitted by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur. The inspection was conducted, and a report was submitted on 31.8.1991. It was pointed out that the fraud, to the tune of several lakhs of rupees, was committed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It was suggested that the surcharge proceedings, under Section 60 of the Act, be initiated against them.2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the 2nd respondent, initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. After considering the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »