Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Satya Murthy Sivalenka S/O. S. Ramalingam, Sameera Homes Private Limit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT107
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Petitioner is Managing Director of M/s. Sameera Homes Pvt. Ltd. He entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of Acs.8.121/2 guntas in survey Nos. 646/A, 646/AA, 646/E and 646/EE situated at Rajapuram village, Balanagar Mandal in Mahabubnagar District, from Donti Atchutha Reddy under agreement of sale dated 20.5.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,60,000/- per acre. Agreement of sale was entered into by and between petitioner and his vendor on a Non-Judicial Stamp (NJS) paper of Rs. 100/-. When some of the villagers expressed doubt about stamp duty paid, petitioner approached respondent for determination of stamp duty. He also submitted original agreement of sale for consideration. The Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar District, issued impugned notice/order dated 17.3.2008 directing petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 3,78,950/- and penalty at ten times of stamp duty in a sum of Rs. 37,89,500/- (in total Rs. 41,68,450/-) within fifte...
Bijivemula Venkata Subba Reddy Vs. Jangam Satya Babu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT689
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 89 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner, on the other hand, presented a counter-claim, for that very relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim.2. The respondents filed A.S. No. 5 of 2008 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Rajampet at Badvel. After some time, they filed I.A. No. 37 of 2008, under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with a prayer to permit them to withdraw the appeal, without prejudice to the right to file a fresh suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner opposed the application, stating that the valuable rights have accrued to him, on account of the decree passed in his counter-claim and the same cannot be defeated ...
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and AMR Technology Inc. rep. by Its Power ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT362
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The matter is coming up for admission.2. This Court ordered notice on 8.9.2008.3. Sri B. Nalin Kumar entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. Sri N. Harinatha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner filed application No. 1041 of 2008 praying for permission to file better affidavit and the said application was ordered by this Court by order dated 1.12.2008.5. Sri B. Nalin Kumar filed a counter affidavit in detail on behalf of the respondents and rejoinder also had been filed.6. Sri N. Harinatha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the letter of request made by the foreign court and the contents thereof and would maintain that in the light of Order 26, Rules 19, 22 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience, there is no necessity of putting the opposite parties on notice. The learned Counsel would maintain that in fact certain ...
Khursheed Sultana and ors. Vs. Mir Asif Ali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT103
ORDERVilas V. Afzul Purkar, J.1. This batch of revisions is concerned with the correctness of the common judgment of lower appellate Court on the eviction petitions filed by the landlords and the petitions under Section 9 filed by the tenants. These cases covered two different tenants but the same landlords. Both the tenants had filed Section 9 petitions under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act').2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as 'landlords' and though there are two tenants of two portions, collectively, they are referred to as 'tenants' as facts in respect of both matters are similar. The exhibit numbers, referred to hereinafter, are exhibits marked in R.C. No. 698 of 1999, which is one of the eviction petitions under consideration filed by the landlords herein against Mir Yousuf Ali.3. The chronological events which led to filing of these revision petitions are set out as under:(a) One Mrs. Khursheed Sultana was t...
M. Venkata Rao (Died) Per Lr and anr. Vs. M. Sheshagiri Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT662
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order, dated 27-06-2008, passed in I.A. No. 93 of 2008 in O.S. No. 67 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Mahabubabad, Warangal District.2. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the aforesaid suit against petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 6, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. When the suit was coming up for defendant's evidence, the present I.A. has been filed by the defendants, stating that through an agreement of sale dated 13-04-1988, the 1st defendant has got purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and that the said document is required to be impounded by the competent authority for collecting required stamp duty and penalty, and therefore they requested to send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, for impounding. The 1sl respondent/plaintiff resisted the petition by...
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the Additiona ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT542
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 26.03.1999 in WP Nos. 21781 and 31868 of 1998, wherein, both the writ petitions were allowed.2. WP No. 21781 of 1998 was filed by the respondents herein seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein in not approving the pro-forma agreement submitted by the respondents to commence contract for a period of three years and in not furnishing the letter of authorization to enable the respondents herein to fix advertisements and in not marking and handing over the poles (4,500) to enable them to display the advertisements as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.3. WP No. 31868 of 1998 was filed for declaring the action of the appellants herein in issuing the impugned proceedings in No. 3642/Advt./A3/95-98 dated 21.07.1998 demanding an amount of Rs. 1,86,93,500/- as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and for setting aside the other proceedings and consequential direction to t...
Jadhav Rekoba and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT10
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The three (3) petitioners assail the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 22, Social Welfare (Department), dated 05.03.2002, whereby and whereunder, they in exercise of powers under Section 7(2) of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for brevity, the Act), rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of the District Collector, the second respondent herein, who by order dated 31.12.2000, cancelled the Caste Certificates issued to the petitioners as belonging to Lambada (Scheduled Tribe).2. The Girijana Lambadies Brundam, Adilabad gave a complaint that the first petitioner and his two sons, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, obtained false Certificates as belonging to Lambada community though they migrated from Maharashtra. In exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act, the second respondent constituted a District Scrutiny Committee (D.S.C.) under Rule 8 of the A.P. Sche...
Mohd. Maqbool and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT320
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of one Sree Kareemullah, original owner of premises bearing No.16-5-291/1 of Khidki Bood Ali Shah, Hyderabad. The property admeasuring 460 square yards is said to have been purchased under registered document on 19th Azur, 1958 Fasli. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 04-01-1996 under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). This was followed by a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act dated 15-03-1996. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20606 of 1996 challenging the same on the ground that they were not put on notice by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was allowed on 01-10-1997 and the notification under Section 3(2) was set aside. The 2nd respondent was directed to issue notice to the petitioners. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the 2...
The Public Information Officer/Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2009AP73; 2009(1)ALT700
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Whether denial of certified copy of Muntakhab1 to a person on the ground that he/she is not a legal heir of Muntakhab holder is justified under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, for short)? This interesting question of considerable significance falls for consideration in this writ petition filed by two public authorities of Revenue Administration of Government of Andhra Pradesh, namely, the Public Information Officer/Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the Appellate Authority/Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad.2. Second respondent, Smt. Gousinnisa Begum (wrongly described as Smt. Gousinnisa Baig) filed an application before first respondent requesting for a copy of Muntakhab No. 3232 of 1304F under RTI Act. By an order dated 28.6.2007, first petitioner refused to give certified copy on the ground that her name does not figure in Muntakhab nor she prod...
Akula Chenna Keshavulu @ Keshavaiah Vs. Mula Venkateswar Reddy and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT99
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 14-10-2008 and Sri G. Seena Kumar and Sri O. Kailasnath Reddy, the learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.2. Sri M. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that a suit for injunction simplicitor had been filed on the strength of the specific cause of action averred in the plaint and instead of numbering the suit certain queries had been raised and the plaint had been returned and though the queries had been answered, instead of numbering the plaint, the plaint had been rejected. Learned Counsel would also maintain that the applicability or otherwise of Order 2 Rule 2 or Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and not before numbering the suit. Learned Counsel would also maintain that none of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure be made applicable to the facts of the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »