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.
Gati Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sub-registrar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD19
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the proceedings No. 283/2000 dated 29.7.2000 of the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the first respondent to mutate and note the name of the petitioner in respect of the properties in Survey Nos. 123, 124, 139 and 145 situated at Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District.2. Various facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may not be necessary to decide the issue involved in this writ petition. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition can definitely be said to be a non-speaking order. When the petitioner has come forward and asked for mutation of immovable property, the first respondent ought to have assigned reasons as to why and how the same cannot be mutated in favour of the petitioner. Instead, in one line order, 'with reference to the above cited, I am to inform that your request for mutation of p...
Dr. Sabiha Sultana Vs. Dr. Mohd. BadruddIn and Five ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)252; 2007(3)ALT(Cri)339; 2008CriLJ605
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed seeking to assail the order dated 13-12-2002 in Crl.M.P. No. 8168 of 2001 in C.C. No. 881 of 1999, on the file of the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderbad, wherein the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein i.e., A-1, A-3 to A-6 for discharge, was allowed.2. The revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondents 1 to 5 herein and another, alleging offence under Section 500 IPC. A-1 is the husband of the complainant, A-2 and A-3 are his parents, A-4 and A-5 are his sisters and A-6 is the husband of A-4. According to the complainant, A-1, at the instigation of A- 2 to A-6, gave a publication in Siasiat Urdu daily on 14-04-1999 making false allegations to defame the complainant, her parents and brother. The imputation in the public notice reads as under:Because of your consistent misbehaviour and because of the fact that you got an abortion performed witho...
Gangavarapu Hanumantha Rao @ Anjaneyulu Vs. Battigiri Ramulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD466; 2007(6)ALT633
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 413 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction. He also filed I.A. No. 1250 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., and the trial Court granted an order of ex parte temporary injunction. The same is in force.2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein (for short 'the respondents') filed I.A. No. 1484 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, to identify the suit schedule property and to note its physical features, including taking of photographs etc. The petitioner opposed the application, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 17.11.2006, the trial Court allowed the LA. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed an identical application under the same provision, being I.A. No. 1338 of 2006, and the trial Court dismissed the same on 01...
Md. TajuddIn Vs. Md. Abdul Rahaman and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD573
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 8.5.2007 made in I.A. No. 247 of 2006 in O.S. No. 180 of 1992 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, by which, the learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Section 151 C.P.C. ordering to send the disputed signatures of the 3rd defendant on Ex. A1 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant in the suit. On 25.6.1972, an oral agreement was made between the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, and the defendants 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th defendant to sell the plaint schedule land including the house in favour of the plaintiff. On 9.6.1977, a deed of Agreement of Sale/Acknowledgment deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff as a token of receipt of the monies advanced. However, as the agr...
Shabana Khan Vs. D.B. Sulochana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD818
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals arise against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 400 and 401 of 2004 in O.S. No. 10 of 2004 on 19.4.2005 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad to the extent of the observation in Para 22 of the said common order said to be a finding adverse to the interest of the appellant.2. The factual background is that in the suit for partition, petitions were filed in I.A. Nos. 400 and 401 of 2004 for grant of interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from dealing with the suit property and the trial Court passed the impugned common order on merits partly allowing both the applications.3. The ultimate result of the petitions is not the subject-matter under challenge in these two appeals, and it is only an observation made by the trial Court in Para 22 of the common order that is challenged herein as being opposed to the unambiguous language of Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act')...
M. Venkata Seshamma Vs. Brahmandam Venkata Kusala Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD367; 2008(4)ALT601
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri M.Y.K. Rayudu, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this Second Appeal:(i) Whether the decree granted by the lower appellate Court for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondent herein though the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties by adducing any evidence is not contrary to law?(ii) Whether the defendant/appellant herein has not become a co-owner in view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in respect of the share of her husband in the suit schedule properties, which are admittedly joint family properties and entitle to enjoy the same, as her husband where about he is not known since 1991?(iii) Whether the defendant/appellant herein being a legally wedded wife of Sri Bramhandam Raghava Rao who is one of the coparceners in ...
In Re: Magnaquest Solutions Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Un ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)3CompLJ345(AP); [2007]80SCL496(AP)
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. In this petition, filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner-transferor company prays that the scheme of amalgamation, as approved by the respective Board of Directors of the transferor and transferee companies, be sanctioned and confirmed by this Court so as to bind all members, creditors and employees of the petitioner, for an order that the petitioner be dissolved without the process of winding up, for an order that the petitioner shall, within thirty days of its receipt, cause a certified copy of the order to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies for registration, that on such certified copy being delivered, the Registrar of companies should take necessary consequential action in respect of the petitioner including its dissolution, and that the parties to the scheme, or other persons interested, be at liberty to apply to the High Court for any direction that may be necessary to carry out the scheme of amalgamation....
N. Venkata Swamy Naidu Vs. Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALT439; 2008CriLJ227
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Seeking to have respondents 1, 2, 4 to 9, punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, for wilful disobedience and gross violation of the orders of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai dated 18.07.2005, this contempt case is filed.2. Facts, to the extent relevant, are that C.P. No. 24 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner herein, before the Company Law Board, under Sections 397, 398 and 402 read with Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956. Among the interim reliefs sought for included an order to prevent the sale or dispossession of the land of the company and to prevent injury being caused to persons who were allotted flats in the project. Petitioner would submit that, when the Company Petition was pending consideration before the Company Law Board, respondents 1, 2, 4 to 9 had demolished the superstructure of the building necessitating his filing an application, in C.A. No. 84 of 2005, requesting the Company Law Board to interfere and g...
Siddiqui Suraiya Bano W/O. Siddiqui Arshad AmIn Vs. the Regional Passp ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD568
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. Pramada, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner. Proof of service is filed.2. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not receiving the application of the petitioner for making the correction of her date of birth in the passport as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondent to receive the application of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth in the passport as 30.07.1943 instead of 30.07.1942 and pass such other suitable order.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that she was born on 30.07.1943 in Nagina town, U.P. State, India, and that after her marriage, she had shifted to Hyderabad and has been residing in the address furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is also stated by the petitioner that the Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad issued passport to her in the year 1990, and su...
B. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor, High Cou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ184
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under Sections 448 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. A3 was also convicted under Section 448 and 326 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 r/w. 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 326 r/w. 34 IPC. The sentences had to run concurrently. In appeal the convictions and sentences passed against A2 and A3 were set aside and they were acquitted. However, the convictions under Sections 448 and 326 IPC passed against A1 were upheld and the sentence under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »