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.
Nemuri Lakshminarayana and anr. Vs. Nemuri Prakash and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD470; 2008(2)ALT575
ORDERV.V.S. Rao J.1. Respondents 6 to 10 herein - plaintiffs 6 to 10 in O.S. No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District; obtained preliminary decree dated 08.9.1993 for partition of suit schedule properties. In the meanwhile, plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 2241 of 1993 under Order XXVI Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of Advocate commissioner to divide suit schedule properties as per preliminary decree, to allot one such share each to plaintiffs and defendants, and to determine mesne profits. The trial Court appointed Advocate commissioner on 27.7.1994. Report was filed on 10.7.1995 dividing suit schedule property and assessing mesne profits payable by defendants to plaintiffs at Rs. 7,15,067.75 ps. Both the parties filed objections to the report of the Advocate commissioner. After considering the same, trial Court passed orders on 09.4.1998 returning the warrant and directing Advocate commissioner to make division ...
Safe Pack Polymers Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. G.V.N. Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas71(AP); [2008]88SCL65(AP)
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This application is filed under Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956, ('the Companies Act', for brevity), seeking a direction to respondents to deliver possession of debtors' ledger for 1995-96 and other books of account and records of the company to the applicant. The application is filed by the official liquidator (OL) attached to this court acting as liquidator of M/s. Safe Pack Polymers Ltd. (in liquidation). The first respondent is ex-managing director and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are former directors of the company.2. The affidavit filed by the official liquidator in support of judges summons shows that the applicant-company was directed to be wound up by order dated April 29, 1999, in C.P. No. 69 of 1997. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as liquidator. He issued notices dated May 15, 1999, under sections 454 and 455 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the respondents requiring them to file statement of affairs (SoA), deliver assets, book...
In Re: Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh;
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas556(AP); [2008]85SCL412(AP)
V.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The official liquidator attached to this Court filed the instant application purportedly under Sections 448, 449 and 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, seeking to recall the order of this Court dated June 30, 2006, in Company Application No. 570 of 2006 and also the order dated September 28, 2006, in Company Petitions Nos. 140 and 144 of 2001, whereby and whereunder this Court ordered winding up of M/s. Southern Udhyans Ltd., (in liquidation) (hereafter called, 'the SUL'), M/s. Southern Wonder World Resorts Ltd., (in liquidation) (hereafter called, 'the SWL') and M/s. Southern Continental Contractors Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereafter called 'the SCL'). The official liquidator also seeks modification of the said order to the effect that the advocate commissioners appointed by this Court as liquidators be directed to function under overall control and superintendence of the official liquidator. Various other directions are also sought.2. The application was init...
Peddireddy Thimma Reddy Farm Foundation Vs. District Collector and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD712
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether furnishing of report of enquiry to the person to whom a show-cause notice for taking action is mandatory before passing a final order on that show-cause notice.2. The petitioner, which was appointed as the Project Implementing Agency (PIA) to implement 12 watershed development programmes in Ranga Reddy District was supplied with guidelines, issued by Government of India, and was directed to follow those guidelines for effective implementation of the watersheds and was given Rs. 18.90 lakhs phases for execution of the works. On the ground that the petitioner committed some lapses in implementation of the watershed programmes, first respondent passed orders suspending the petitioner as PIA and appointed Mr. Syed Aziz Ahmed, Assistant Director of Agriculture as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into those lapses and submit his report within a month. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed en...
A.K. Gopalan Vs. Osmania University
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD30
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. In this case, petitioner has obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the respondent-University to show-cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings No. 2446/210/69/Adm.III dated 9.7.1997 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from the date when he was placed under suspension i.e. 7.7.1993 for the proved misconduct.2. The factual backdrop of the case for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus:The petitioner, whose date of birth as per service records is 30.8.1935, was appointed as Director of Printing Press, Osmania University with effect from 26.8.1972. While working as such he was placed under suspension on 7.7.1993 when he was availing medical leave from 4.6.1993 to 3.8.1993 pending enquiry.3. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 12355 of 1993 contending that though he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, the papers...
D.K. Pattanaik and anr. Vs. the Station House Officer, Nallabelly Poli ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)692; 2008(2)ALT541; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)321; 2008CriLJ2287
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime registered under FIR No. 78 of 2005 of Nallabelli Police Station, Warangal District, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, filed this Writ Petition seeking invalidation of action of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narasampet in forwarding the complaint of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for investigation and the consequential action of respondent No. 1 in registering the crime. The petitioners also seek restraint order on respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the investigation by quashing FIR dated 3-11-2005. 2. The facts to the extent they are relevant are stated hereunder: Petitioner No. 2-Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (for short 'the Corporation'), which is a fully owned Government Company, is engaged in the business of refining and marketing of petroleum products, such as, Motor Sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel (HSD), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Lubricants (Lubes) etc., through out the country. It ...
Avala Raja Reddy Vs. Gunti Radha Krishnaiah Chetty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT70
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 7-3-2000, this Court made the following order:Admit. The following substantial questions of law arise: 1. Whether the suit is not barred by limitation since it was filed beyond three years i.e., on 27-3-1986 from the date of payment of endorsements Exs.A-4, A-7 and A-11 dated 27-3-1998 in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) ALT 807?2. Whether both the courts below have not committed error in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of A.P. Act 45 of 1987?3. Whether the findings of both the courts below are correct in holding that disputed signatures on payment endorsements Exs.A-4, A-7 and A-11 are genuine, since both the courts arrived at a conclusion to that effect, without the aid of Hand Writing Expert?2. Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant as defendant had pointed out that apart from the substantial questions of law on the strength of which the Second Appeal had been admitted. Yet another subst...
N. Annapurna and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD357; 2008(2)ALT195
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them on 15.1.1998 arid their continued effort to prevent them from continuing to enjoy the buildings and other institutions in Sy. Nos. 1020(3) and 1020(6) of Patnam Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary and to refrain the respondents from interfering with their rights from running the college and other religious institutions in the buildings constructed by them in the land in question. First petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the second petitioner - Sri Sai Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'trust').2. Petitioners submit that they are in occupation and enjoyment of the buildings constructed for the use of the trust in Sy. Nos. 1020/3 and 1020/6 admeasuring Ac.2.70 cents and Ac.0.28 cents respectively totalling Ac.2.98 cents situated at Patnam Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District. One Mr. Markandeya N...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Molli Venkateswara Viswaswara Kumar,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)565; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)111; 2008CriLJ1997
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. On the basis of a complaint dated 06.06.1995, submitted by one Mr. Chikkala Syamala Sundara Kumar-P.W.1, police registered crime No. 139 of 1995 against A1 to A3, the respondents herein, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that the first respondent-A1, together with A2 and A3, attacked one Mr. Rajasekhar with a knife at 6 p.m. on 06.06.1995 and that the said Rajasekhar succumbed to injuries. The case was tried by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam as Sessions Case No. 135 of 1995. The accused pleaded innocence. Through the judgment dated 19.11.2006, the trial Court acquitted the respondents-A1 to A3 herein. Hence, this appeal by the State.2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the eye witnesses turned hostile, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the form of medical reports and post mortem report to the effect that the first respondent-Al stabbed the deceas...
Ramesh G. Makhija Vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD721; 2008(2)ALT499
P.S. Narayana, J.1. S.A.M.P. No. 2971/2007 is filed praying for permission of this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law in the present Second Appeal.2. The appellant filed the present application praying for the formulation of the substantial questions of law arising in the present Second Appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances explained, this Court is inclined to order the said application and accordingly the same is hereby ordered.3. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Second Appeal:(a) Whether Ex.A-5 dated 15-12-1974 constituted a legal offer (proposal) made to the appellant/plaintiff for out-right sale of the suit plot at Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to him and whether an agreement is formed by the compliance of the conditions in such offer (proposal)?(b) Whether the scheme evolved by the 1st respondent/1st defendant on its formation from 1-1-1974 constitutes an open offer and the appellant/ plaintiff is entitled to the allotmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »