Andhra Pradesh Court January 2008 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.
Shaik Khasim @ Roppagadu, Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public Pro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)551; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)335; 2008CriLJ2002
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. K. Sreenivasa Rao, who is also known as China Sreenu, was working as a muta worker in the mango market at Vijayawada. On 03.04.2004 he was murdered. A complaint submitted by his mother has set the process of law, in motion. The case was taken up as S.C. No. 248 of 2004 by the Court of Session, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada. A1 to A6 were tried for the offence of committing the murder of K. Sreenivasa Rao. Through its judgment, dated 07.11.2005, the trial Court acquitted A5 and A6, but convicted A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and one month simple imprisonment respectively. This appeal is filed by A1 to A4.2. The mother of the deceased i.e., P.W.1 filed a complaint-Ex.P1, dated 03.04.2004, stating that her son was employed as a muta coolie in the mango market and that he used to go to duty at 4.30 AM daily in the morning, and come back by 9.30 PM, depending on the extent of work. On...
M. Yella Reddy and anr. Vs. the Government of India Rep. by Its Deputy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD696; 2008(4)ALT132
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 4-12-2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was further extended for a further limited period on 27-12-2007.2. Counter affidavit is filed by R.3.3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for the purpose of convenience, in short, it would be referred to as 'the Act'), dated 29-8-2005 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8-9-2005 is contrary to Section 3A(1) to (3) and consequential notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc. No. G1-826/04, dated 8-1-2006 published in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3(g) of the Act, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and consequently dir...
P. Ranjith Kumar Reddy Vs. S. Satyanarayana Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD468; 2008(2)ALT565
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 106 of 2003, in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was dismissed for default on 19.4.2005. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to restore the suit. Since there was delay of 139 days, he filed I.A. No. 28 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Through its order, dated 13.4.2007, the trial court allowed the I.A. No. 28 of 2006, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs, on or before 17.4.2007 and files affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Default Clause was also added.2. The petitioner states that the amount of costs was deposited within time, and that he was advised to wait till the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is disposed of, in the context of filing affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination. The matter was called on 23.4.2007, and the trial ...
LPL Infrastructures Limited Vs. Kumar's Metallurgical Corporation Limi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas952(AP); (2008)3CompLJ220(AP); [2008]85SCL251(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The company petition is filed under Section 433(e), 434(1)(a)&(c) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of respondent company on the ground that the latter is unable to pay its dues within three months from the date of receipt of delivering demand by petitioner for an amount of Rs. 5,35,99,090/-2. In a nutshell, the case of petitioner is as follows. The petitioner, namely, M/s.LPL Infrastructures Limited (LPL, for brevity) is a public limited company engaged in the business of execution of civil construction contracts. The respondent, namely M/s.Kumar Metallurgical Corporation Limited (KMC, for brevity) is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Vattimarty village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing sponge iron. The respondent engaged LPL for production of equipment and machinery for construction of sponge iron plant and ancillary buil...
Shaik Yakoob Ahmed Vs. Shaik Basheer Ahmed and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD462; 2008(2)ALT568
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 30 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, against the respondents, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. He filed I.A. No. 1365 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the body of the plaint as well as the prayer portion. One of the proposed amendments is about the correction of house numbers in item No. 4 of B-schedule. The petitioner also intended to incorporate the prayer for a decree of administration and other ancillary reliefs. The application was opposed by defendant No. 2. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 11.09.2007. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the old house numbers in item No. 4 of B-schedule were correctly mentioned but in mentioning the corresponding new ...
Smt. G. Bharati Devi and Two ors. Vs. the Hyderabad Urban Development ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD292; 2008(2)ALT214
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, who are successful bidders in respect of seven plots situated in Nalagandla Residential Complex, near BHEL Township, Hyderabad, in the auction held by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, respondent No. 1 herein, in pursuance of auction notification dated 28-2-2006, filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in handing over of possession of the plots to them by providing infrastructure facilities, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to hand over possession of the auctioned property after providing all the infrastructural facilities.2. Respondent No. 1 issued notification for sale of vacant plots situated in different areas, included in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. In respect of the plots ...
Ghanta Infrastructures Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT611
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.3. M/s. Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M. Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the bus...
M. Venkata Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by General Manager, South ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD619; 2008(2)ALT369; 2008(4)ARBLR69(AP)
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. The validity and legality of the judgment dated 1-9-2005 of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is assailed in this civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, 'the Act').2. The appellant was awarded a contract for urgent repairs to open drains from Secunderabad end to Dronachallam end for disposal of sullage water. The agreement was entered into on 12-2-1996 and the work had to be completed by 11-5-1996 i.e., within a period of three months. The value of the work is Rs. 8,85,841/-. Time for completion of the work was extended from time to time and the final extension was up to 15-5-1997. While granting extension of time, once penalty was imposed on the appellant/claimant. He requested for waiver of the penalty, but the Railway (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department') refused to consider his request. The appellant/claimant completed the work at Dronachallam end and when...
Veerabahutla Adinarayana Vs. Balusu Rajarao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD510; 2008(2)ALT566
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 105 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the same is pending. The respondent/defendant filed R.C.C. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Tadepalligudem. As the property involved is the same, the petitioner moved an application, being Transfer O.P.(SR) No. 7168 of 2007, purportedly under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 ('the Rules', for brevity) before the Senior Civil Judge, who is also appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act', for brevity) to transfer R.C.C. No. 4 of 2005 from the file of the Rent Controller to itself for being tried along with the specific performance suit. By the impugned order, the application was rejected, aggrieved by which,...
Sarasa Appalakonda and ors. Vs. Pulamarasetti Somunaidu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD742; 2008(4)ALT174
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Kanaka Raju, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri M. Ram Mohan, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.2. Sri Kanaka Raju, the learned Counsel representing Sri K. Subralimanyam, the learned Counsel for the appellants had pointed out to the substantial questions of law which had been raised in Ground No. 12 of the grounds of appeal and would maintain that the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court had totally erred in recording findings relating to the nature of the property. The learned Counsel would maintain that when the origin of the property is not from the paternal side and from the other source, the same cannot be treated as ancestral property or joint family property and in this view of the matter, the findings are unsustainable and the second appeal is to be allowed. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.3. On the contrary, Sri Ram Mohan, the lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »