Andhra Pradesh Court March 2008 Judgments
Singapogu Anjaiah and 7 ors. Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)844; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)148
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th April, 2006 passed in S.C. No. 175 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1-Singapogu Anjaiah, A2-Singapogu Chandra Mouli, A3-Singapogu Shankaraiah, A4-Singapogu Sreenu, A5-Singapogu Venkataiah, A6-Singapogu Narsimha, A7-Singapogu Sailu and A8-Singapogu Bal Ram guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for LIFE for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 9 months for each of the offences under Sections 148 and 324 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellants/ accused were put on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar for the following charges:i) Against A1 to A8 for the offence of rioting, armed with deadly weapons punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Nagireddy Sai Kumari Vs. Nagireddi Vara Nageswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD(Cri)747; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)171
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 03-03-2006 in M.C. No. 51 of 2003, on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner herein under 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Records are perused. 3. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 51 of 2003 alleging that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 16-02-1997, as per Hindu customs and rites and she is the second wife of the respondent, the first wife having died seven years prior to the marriage of the petitioner and at the time of marriage eight sovereigns of gold and one acre of land was given to her towards pasupukumkuma, that six months after marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner demanding her to sell away the one acre of land and also demanding Rs. 10,000/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Sri Madala S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP163; 2008(4)ALD339; 2008(3)ALT409
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dt. 10-10-2007 in IA No.1210/2006 in OS No.291/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur was listed before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge of this Court to decide the question 'whether an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed for sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at the later stage, including when coming up for arguments after entire trial?'When the revision petition came up for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was pointed out the inconsistent views taken by two learned Judges of this Court for maintaining the applications filed seeking expert's opinion at the belated stage of arguments in Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavati 2006 (4) ALT 56, Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai v. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu : 2006(3)ALD146 and Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkatarama...
Tag this Judgment!Dhumthi Ekambareswarappa Vs. T. Shambulingappa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP161; 2008(4)ALD350; 2008(3)ALT330
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 13-12-2007. The matter is coming up for admission today.2. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel representing petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Nagesh learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 2. It is stated that notice had been served on Respondent No .1 and none represents on behalf of Respondent No. 1.3. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the trial Court erred in construing the agreement of sale as sale deed in terms of Article 47-A, Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the trial Court should have seen that the suit is for specific performance, wherein specific prayer relating to recovery of possession also had been prayed for.4. Further the learned Counsel would maintain that when document itself does not speak of any delivery of possession either at the time of execution or any time thereafter, it cannot be hel...
Tag this Judgment!Kalla Krishna Swamy and anr. Vs. S. Jagga Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD706
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on record.2. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed praying for enhancement of compensation.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that though the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- had been claimed, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court, it would be just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- taking the age of the deceased as 17 years.4. On the contrary, (sic) learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would submit that in the light of the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal below, the said findings not to be disturbed.5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal:1. Whether the quantum of compensation which had been awarded by the Tribunal below can be said to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ?2. If so, to what relief t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mayulamma Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Ho ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)154; 2008(3)ALT649; 2008CriLJ2753
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The wife of Sangadi Bhagaraju invoked the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the detention order passed by the second respondent, Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District at Kakinada in Ref. No. 61/M/671/2007 dt. 14-11-2007 detaining her husband, Sangadi Bhagaraju (hereinafter called as 'the detenu) by declaring the same as illegal and void and set him at liberty forthwith.2. The 2nd respondent-Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District at Kakinada passed the detention order under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1896 (for short 'the Act') stating that he satisfied to detain the detenu as he is found to be a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and explanation given under the above section of the Act and his activities qualify as being ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Mechine Tools Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALT31; [2008(118)FLR611]; (2008)IIILLJ706AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a Government owned company. It assails an order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in G.O.Rt. No. 2150, dated 28-10-2005, making a reference of the dispute, raised by the H.M.T Contract Labour's Union, the 3rd respondent, to the Labour Court-I, at Hyderabad. It also challenges the order dated 30-06-2005, passed by the Labour Court, in I.A. No. 3 of 2006 in I.D. No. 201 of 2005, directing reinstatement of the members of the 3rd respondent-Union.2. The 3rd respondent initiated proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, stating that the petitioner did not regularize the services of the Contract Labourers, though they worked for several years. On the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, indicating failure of his efforts, the 1st respondent referred the dispute to the Labour Court, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act), and the same was taken up as I.D. No. 201 of 2005. The 3rd responden...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Tirumala Venkateshwara Rice Mill Vs. Syed Pentu Saheb (Died) and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD371; 2009(1)ALT131; [2008(118)FLR1050]
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant and Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel representing respondents.2. The following substantial questions of law had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant which read as hereunder:(a) Whether imposing of 12% interest on the Award to the accident dated 15.2.1987 invoking the Section 4A, Sub-clause (3) of W.C. Act, which clause came into force on 15.9.1995 by way of an amendment?(b) Whether the learned Commissioner is competent to demand interest on the Award having accepted the principle Award deposited by the appellants and same is apportioned to the claimants?(c) Whether the learned Commissioner is competent to reopen the issue once the appellants pay the entire principal amount and same was apportioned to the claimants and no farther action was taken for nearly two years?3. The learned Counsel representing the respondents had raised a preliminary objection relating to...
Tag this Judgment!K. Manmohan Reddy (Dr.) and anr. Vs. State of A.P., Revenue Department ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD813; 2008(6)ALT350
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein own two plots bearing Nos. 224 and 224A admeasuring 355 sq.yards each in Sy. No. 51 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and there is a title dispute pending in respect of the land in Sy. No. 51 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.LP. Nos. 6093 and 7013 of 2006, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders dated 8-9-2006 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. Despite existence of the said status quo orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, regularized some portion of the land in the said survey number under the ULC Act in favour of the unofficial respondents, and the Government have also issued G.O. Ms. No. 1816 dated 18-10-2005 and G. O. Ms. No. 2183 dated 27-12-2005. Thereafter, on the strength of the said G.Os., the unofficial ...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Sudhakara Rao S/O Late S.V.R.G. Narasimha Rao Vs. the Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD225; 2008(3)ALT754
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of a reference made by a learned single Judge as per the orders dated 28.09.2007 on the question as to the procedure contemplated in regard to the publication of notice in Form-I under Rule 4 of the Trustees Rules 1987 for appointment of the Trust Board in respect of an Institution in terms of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987. Though a specific question as such is not forming part of the reference, however, the learned single Judge having regard to a view held by another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos. 1020 and 1337 of 2007 dated 23.02.2007 vis--vis the procedure as contemplated and required to be followed up, did not find favour with the said view. Hence, the Reference.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these proceedings are as a result of a writ filed by the petitioner seeking Mandamus assailing the issuance of notification i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »