Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Stup Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Soham Engineering Constructions
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALT581; 2008(4)ARBLR75(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This application is filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act brevity), seeking appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the respondent.2. The applicant is Consultancy Company. It offers consultancy for civil and structural engineering, architectural engineering and project management. The respondent, which is a construction firm, is in the business of civil/building contract. They desired to have designed consultancy services of the applicant. Discussions were held. Pursuant thereto, the applicant made an offer to provide consultancy services for construction of flyovers at (a) Telugu Talli Statue Junction; (b) Ambedkar Statue Junction and (c) Basheerbagh Junction. The offer also contained details of number of post tender services and consultancy charges therefor. The offer was also subject to 'other terms and conditions' appended to the letter of offer as Annexure-I. Condition No. 1...
A.G. Venkatesulu Vs. S. Mallikarjuna Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALD21; 2008(2)ALT334
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Though the matter is listed under the caption 'interlocutory', with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-ll, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 7-11-2003, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), allowing the O.A. No. 742 of 1997, which was filed by the respondent No. 1, applicant therein, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to quash the proceedings No. RC/ENC/G4/67000/92, dated 10-01-1997, and to direct the respondents therein to consider the case of the respondent No. 1, keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 36, date...
Reddivari Muni Reddy and anr. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)786; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)18; 2008CriLJ2218
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellants herein, the son and mother, were tried by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, at Tirupati, in S.C. No. 97 of 2002, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. Through its judgment dated 18-10-2005, the trial Court held the appellants not guilty of the offence under Section 498A, but convicted them for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. it sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal.2. The case presented by the prosecution before the trial Court was as under:A-1 was married to one Lakshmi Devi, about one-and-half years, prior to 30-10-2001. Alleging that A-1 was harassing and suspecting her fidelity, Lakshmi Devi, went to the house of her parents', one week prior to 30-10-2001. On 29-10-2001, A-1 went to the house of his in-laws, convinced Lakshmi Devi and brought her to his native place in Chit...
Prof. C. Muni Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD583; 2008(5)ALT37
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1990, dated 22.7.2002, which was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1926 of 2002, dated 20.3.2003. Whereas, Sri M.V. Raja Ram, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has stated that the issue in this writ petition is not settled and it is slightly different. Learned, Counsel has urged that G.O. Ms. Nos. 276 and 277, Education Department, dated 2.12.1993 and the Pension Rules of the respondent-University, which clearly state that no Teacher is entitled to count any service rendered after having attained the age of 58 years or any emoluments received thereafter for the purpose of pension, were not taken into consideration by this Court earlier.2. In fact, being aggrieved by an order dated 7.11.2003 made in a similar matter i.e., Writ Petition No. 18808 of 2003, the Un...
M. Venkata Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by General Manager, South ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD479; 2008(2)ALT535
B. Seshasayana, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-9-2005 passed in O.P. No. 1717 of 2003 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, 'the Act').2. The parties entered into a contract for proposed repairs to the cess and widening of bank between KMS 138-155 in Vikarabad-Parli Section of South Central Railway on 17-2-1992. The date of completion of the work was 16-8-1992. The value of the contract was Rs. 9,22,200/-. The General Conditions of Contract (for short 'GCC') formed part of the agreement that was entered into between the parties. The contractor was to deposit a sum of Rs. 53,6101- towards security deposit, but at the request of the Contractor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant') it was agreed to deduct it from the r...
Shetty Chandra Shekar and ors. Vs. Neeti Ramulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD709; 2008(2)ALT463
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2007, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District, allowing the petition in I.A. No. 54 of 2007 in I.A. No. 187 of 2006 in O.S. No. 62 of 2006, filed by the respondents under Order XIX, Rule 2 C.P.C. for the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination on his own affidavit, the petitioners filed this C.R.P.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants. It is the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs that the Court below committed an error in allowing the present petition in I.A. No. 54 of 2007 filed by the respondents-defendants, and as such, it is liable to be set aside; while it is the contention of the respondents-defendants that the Court below in exercise of its discretion under Order XIX, Rule 2 C.P.C. has rightly allowed the I.A., the same being valid and in accordance with law, no interference is called for therewith, and the C.R.P. be dismissed.3. Before adve...
Mula Kalavathi and ors. Vs. Suddala Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD677; 2008(2)ALT466
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 1418 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, against respondents 2 and 3, challenging an order, cancelling the permission accorded to him, to construct building over the suit schedule property. The petitioners are owners of the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 2121 of 2002, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead them as defendants 3, 4 and 5. It was urged that the 1sl respondent sought to make construction on their land, and it is at their instance, that the respondents 2 and 3 have cancelled the permissions, that were earlier accorded to respondent No. 1. The application was opposed by the 1sl respondent. Through its order dated 06-11 -2002, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.2. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is his clients, t...
B. Jagadeswar Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD698; 2008(2)ALT515
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This case has come up before us for consideration of an important question concerning the Subordinate Courts and in regard to the procedure to be adopted in a given situation, especially, as to whether the Presiding Officers of the Courts below should file an affidavit duly sworn to by them in support of the applications seeking extension of the period, which has been prescribed for or ordered by this Court, while disposing of the main cases, for disposal.2. Heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel, Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior counsel, Sri D.V. Sitharammurthy, learned counsel, the President of the A.P. High Court Advocates' Association and the learned Advocate General.3. Shorn of the details, which are not necessary forthe present purpose, the sequel of events giving rise to the situations commence with the 'For being' note put up by the Registry.In an instance, through a letter dated 3-2-2001 in Dis. No. 362, when the Chairman, Land Reforms Appell...
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture and anr. Vs. K. Gayatri, Unem ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD279; 2008(3)ALT504
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Since the issue involved in all the abovementioned writ petitions is one and the same, though the writ petitions are at interlocutory stage and listed under the caption 'For orders', with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for hearing and being disposed of finally by this common order.2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, the learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners (Government), in all the writ petitions, Sri M. Surender Rao, the learned Counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 25896 of 2006 and 425, 1585, 2019 and 3302 of 2007, and Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P. No. 22085 of 2007, and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P.(SR). No. 4882 of 2008 only, since none appears for the responden...
Jakkamreddy Venugopal Reddy and anr. Vs. Sridevi Sarannavarathrulu, Sp ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD520; 2008(4)ALT762
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. By this review petition, the petitioners-appellants pray for review of the judgment dated 22.03.2007, passed by this Court, dismissing the second appeal, by ordering the CMP. No. 437 of 2007, filed by them seeking to raise the question - whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? an additional ground in the second appeal.2. This Court holding that the appellants neither before the Court below nor before this Court raised the plea of limitation, dismissed the second appeal.3. It is the contention of the appellants that after filing of the second appeal, they filed application in C.M.P. No. 437 of 2007, praying to permit them to raise as additional ground in the second appeal - whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation, but without ordering this application, but this Court without considering the said application, has erroneously dismissed the second appeal, and the said error being an error apparent on the face of record, is required to be revi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›