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.
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD693; 2008(3)ALT631
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The appellant herein, who is the petitioner in the Court below, by way of this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), seeks to assail the order dated 5.4.2007 in I.A. No. 850 of 2007 in O.P. No. 338 of 2007 on the file of the Court of First Additional District Judge at Khammam, dismissing an interim injunction application purported to be filed under Section 9(ii)(d) of the Act, whereunder the appellant sought an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from deducting any amount from the running bills of the appellant in respect of Purchase Order No. KC-60 & ROC. 1030, dated 30.6.2006 unilaterally pending disposal of the main O.P.2. Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J. Prahhakar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.3. The appellant herein filed the main application in O.P. No. 338 of 200...
Venkata Naga Devi Picture Palace Vs. Esi Corporation and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD407; [2008(116)FLR4]; (2008)ILLJ403AP
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The substantial question of law pointed out by the learned Counsel Sri P. Bhaskar, representing the appellant is as hereunder:Whether the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmandry, had arrived at the correct conclusion in the light of the evidence available on record relating to the number of persons employed by the appellant so as to attract the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.2. The learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions had taken this Court through the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and further pointed out to the evidence of PW.1 and would maintain that in the light of this evidence, the workers or the persons who should not have been calculated also had been taken as workers of the appellant as such and this had resulted in the wrong calculation of the employees or the workers and hence the improper appreciation of evidence as such would constitute the substantial question of law as specified under Section 82(2) of the Employee...
Mrs. Y. Susheela Vs. the Asst. General Manager (Admn) for Chief Genera ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD400; 2007(5)ALT691
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Article 14 of the Constitution of India declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 16(1) lays down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The Courts have interpreted this facet of the doctrine of equality as casting duty on every public authority to make appointment to public services and on the posts in connection with the affairs of the State by adopting a mechanism which ensures opportunity to all similarly situated persons to compete for selection. One exception to this rule can be found in the constitutional scheme of reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women. The other exception can be found in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which provides ...
Arsha Vijnana Trust, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Sri D.P. Sharma, I.R.S. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(AP)531
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by a Trust through its Secretary, questioning the order of respondent No. 1 dated 31st of January 2003, refusing to renew the exemption granted under Section 80-G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the Trust is registered under Indian Trusts Act with the following objects-(i). To publish the books that are the foundation for 'Arsha Vijnanam' in particular Ramayanam, Mahabharatham, Bhagavatham and other Maha Kavyas. (ii) To publish the original texts of all Vedas, Vedangas, Upangas and leading Darshanas, Ithihasaas, and other works on Indian philosophy, lectures, art and all works on Indian culture.(iii) To promote and propagate the 'Arsha Vijnanam' among the citizens of India in such manner as the trustees may in their absolute discretion think fit.(iv) To conduct lectures, satsangas, classes/seminars, symposia, etc., to disseminate and spread the 'Arsha Vijnanam' and to honour ...
C. Venkat Rami Reddy and ors. Vs. J.S. Ranjan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD1
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 - 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience, praying the Court to punish the respondents 1 and 2 according to law for deliberate and wilful contempt of the Court Order dated 22.8.2006 made in Writ Petition No. 4889 of 2006.2, This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 26.3.2007 and on 28.6.2007 this Court admitted the Contempt Case and on 12.7.2007 respondents 1 and 2 were present and their presence had been recorded and the further appearance of respondents 1 and 2 was dispensed with until further orders.3. Sri Malla Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners had pointed out to the order made by this Court and also the order made by the 1st respondent dated 13.4.2007 and would comment that in the light of the observations made by this Court, it cannot be said that the order had been complied with. Even otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel woul...
K. Rama Rao and ors. Vs. M.A. Bari and B. Shymasundara Rao, Advocates- ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD577; 2007(6)ALT177
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Inasmuch as common questions of law and fact are involved and as both the parties have consented for a common order, these two applications can be disposed of together.2. Application No. 145 of 2007 is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') seeking declarations (1) that Hafeezpet is an Inam land and what was granted to the Inamdar was only land revenue and not the land itself and consequently the heirs of Khurshid Jah Paigah or the respondents herein claiming through them had no right, title or interest in the land in Hafeezpet village' (2) that the petitioners are the tenants lawfully entitled to the property and consequently to enter their names as pattadars/owners of their respective land in the revenue records; and for the relief of perpetual injunction that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective properties in survey No. 78 of Hafe...
Pittala Narsaiah Vs. Dontharaboina Janakamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD7
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by he first defendant in O.S. No. 260 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet.2. After service of notice, the second defendant remained ex parte and did not contest the suit. During pendency of the suit, against other defendants, an application, being LA. No. 56 of 2007, was filed by the plaintiff, under Order XI Rules 1, 2 and 22 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying the Court to serve interrogatories on the second defendant and the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the first defendant preferred the present revision, contending that the Court below has no jurisdiction to permit the plaintiff to serve interrogatories on the second defendant, who remained ex parte, and when the second defendant did not choose to contest the suit, there is no question of serving interrogatories on her. Therefore, the order passed by the learne...
The State of A.P. Represented by Collector Vs. Konala Subbireddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD401; 2008(1)ALT486
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, the defendant in OS No. 46 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.2. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to recover fair, adequate and reasonable compensation in respect of plaint schedule property and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the appellant herein, the defendant in the said suit, to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The suit was dismissed and the matter was carried by way of appeal to this Court AS No. 930 of 1982 and this Court allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter and on remand the trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff has a right to recover fair,...
State of A.P. and ors. Vs. A.K. Ramaswamy Kudalii
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD97
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants being aggrieved of the decree and judgment made in OS No. 94 of 1984 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. The respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff in the said suit.2. The suit was filed for setting aside the Award dated 30.10.1980 made by the District Social Welfare Officer, Land Acquisition, Chittoor, 3rd defendant in the said suit, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,004.44 ps with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as compensation for acquisition of the plaint schedule property and for costs.3. In the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court having settled the issues recorded the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, DWs. 1 and 2, marked Exs. A1 to A21 and Exs. B1 to B10, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit, is entitled to a part of the amount claimed a sum of Rs. 38,863.44 ps with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 12% ...
Alla Seshukumar and anr. Vs. Alla Radha Krishna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD748; 2008(1)ALT430
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 185 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsiff, Gannavaram.2. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of two items of property covered by the plaint schedule. The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the minor son of the defendant. It is not disputed that the defendant executed a registered gift deed on 3.4.1987 in respect of item No. 1 in faovur of the first plaintiff. It is also not disputed that the defendant executed a partition deed on 9.4.1987 allotting item No. 2 to the second plaintiff represented by the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs asserted that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.3. The defendant contended that the gift deed was not acted upon and he executed a revocation deed on 19.11.1992 revoking the gift and that the gift of a joint family property is void, therefore, the first plaintiff is not entitled for injunction in respect of item No. 1....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »