Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
S.K. Agarwal and ors. Vs. A.P. Housing Board and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT767
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB), first respondent herein, issued notification dated 19-7-2005 inviting sealed tenders for auctioning upon the land admeasuring 7,700 sq. yards situated adjacent to waterworks reservoir, red hills, Hyderabad. The last date for submission of bid was 5-8-2005.2. First petitioner acting on behalf of other petitioners submitted bid quoting Rs. 15,050/- per sq. yard (total Rs. 11,58,85,000/-). By communication dated 5-8-2005, the executive engineer (housing) second respondent herein; informed the petitioners that they are the highest bidders for the land offered for sale. Second respondent also informed the petitioners that they have to pay an amount of Rs. 2,96,30,100/- by 8-8-2005 as per the terms and conditions of the bid as otherwise earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by them will be forfeited. After receiving said communication first petitioner submitted objections, inter alia, stating as the survey plan was n...
B. Ramasubba Reddy and anr. Vs. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT422
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three revisions arise out of three separate orders passed by the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. Defendants 1 and 2 are the petitioners in all the revisions. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and 2nd respondent is defendant No. 3.3. The 1st respondent filed the suit, with a prayer to set aide the sale deeds executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence was closed. At that stage, the 1st respondent filed three applications; I.A. No. 1274 of 2007 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1, for the purpose of marking certain documents, I.A. No. 1275 of 2007 was filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the documents under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C, and I.A. No. 1292 of 2007 was filed with a prayer to reopen the evidence, for the purpose of marking certain documents. Through separate o...
Jayavarapu Ramesh Babu S/O Subrahmanyam and Jayavarapu Prasada Rao S/O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT180
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The claimants in O.P. No. 140 of 1995 and O.P. No. 387 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole filed the appeals respectively against the awards, dated 08-09-2000 and 03-08-2001 dismissing their claim petitions.2. The appellants' case is that Jayavarapu Subrahmanyam and Jayavarapu Narayanamma are the parents of petitioners 2 and 3 in O.P. No. 387 of 1995/petitioners in O.P. No. 140 of 1995, while the 1st petitioner in O.P. No. 387 of 1995 is the mother of Jayavarapu Subrahmanyam. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana, another son of Subrahmanyam and Narayanamma, is the owner of the car AP27 4622 insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. On 16-03-1995 Jayavarapu Laxminarayana along with his parents and others was going in his car towards Nellore and near Singarayakonda, lorry No. AEE 4477 owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent in both the petitions allegedly stopped suddenly due t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›