Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
G. Kethamma Vs. Allam Keshava Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD179; 2008(3)ALT15
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 2.7.2007, in EA No. 187 of 2007 in E.P. No. 97 of 2006 in O.S. No. 381 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 1.8.2002, said to have been executed by the defendants. The revision petitioner is the first defendant, whereas the second defendant is her husband. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 29.12.2005 directing the defendant to execute a sale deed and get it registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on or before 28.2.2006 failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered as per law. There was also a direction that the plaintiff shall be put in possession of the suit property after execution of the sale deed as per law. Pursuant thereto the decree-holder/respondent herein filed E.P. No. 9...
Pola Satish Kumar Vs. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Foreman a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP3; 2007(6)ALT421
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 28-3-2007 passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in marking Ex. A-3 document in evidence subject to objection in O.S. No. 916 of 2005.2. The revision petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of money. During the trial, when the document in question was tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants raised an objection stating that the said document was not a promissory note but only a bond and since the same was not sufficiently stamped, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The Court below having taken note of the objection, marked the said document as Ex. A-3 subject to objection. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed contending inter alia that the Court below ought not to have marked the document subject to objecti...
Bansilal Agarwal Vs. Haryana Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD815
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The revision as well as the appeal arise out of O.S. No. 1325 of 2003, on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the CCCA.3. The sole respondent filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, covered by a cheque dated 23,9.2000, invoking the procedure under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). On receiving the summons, the appellant entered appearance and filed LA. No. 314 of 2004 with a prayer to grant leave to defend, stating that there is triable issue. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order dated 15.3.2004, the trial Court accorded permission to the petitioner to defend himself in the suit, but imposed a condition that half of the suit amount shall be deposited, on or before 15.4.2004. The petitioner filed CRP No. 1941 of 2004 on 13.4.2004 against the order in th...
Referring Officer, the Vith Addl. Dist. and Session Judge (Fast Track ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)239; 2007(3)ALT(Cri)364; 2008CriLJ590
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.2. Since both the referred trial and the criminal appeal are inter-related and arise out of the same judgment, dated 24-7-2007, passed in S.C. No. 51 of 2006, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 24-7-2007, in S.C. No. 51 of 2006, passed by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, Chittoor District, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to death with the direction that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead subject to confirmation by this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 1018 of 2007 has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and imposition of capital punishment of death, whereas R.T. No. 2 of 2007 has been filed by the...
V. Rama Rao Vs. T. Raghunathan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP92
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 2nd respondent filed O.S. No. 28 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, against the petitioner, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. When the suit was pending, the 2nd respondent is said to have transferred the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent, through the sale deed, dated 20-12-2005. In view of this development, the 1st respondent filed I. A. No. 693 of 2006 under Rule 10(2) of Order I C. P. C. to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 1-l2-2006, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Smt. Anjana Devi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing was placed before the trial Court, to substantiate the transfer of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent. According to her, the 2nd respondent is prohibited under Section 52 of the Transfer of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›