Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
A. Siva Reddy S/O A. Chinna Nagi Reddy and ors. Vs. the District Colle ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD1; 2008(6)ALT145
Anil R. Dave, C.J.1. The appellants are the original petitioners who have challenged the validity of a common order dated 26th August, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 18003 of 2008 and other allied matters.2. The appeals are admitted and at the request of the learned Advocates, they are finally heard and decided by this common judgment.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under. As a common order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in these appeals, for sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Appeal No. 936 of 2008 are taken into consideration.4. The Deputy Tahsildar, Sirvel had inspected a warehouse of ANC Agro Mills/ANI Warehouse Services situated at Noonepally, Kurnool District, on the basis of some information received with regard to storage/hoarding of Red Gram in benami names and had found that Red Gram had been stored in the said warehouse. He had found that the said food grains namely, Red Gram was stored in the warehouse by some unk...
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and anr. Vs. K. Venkatnarayana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD158; 2009(1)ALT71; [2008(119)FLR573]
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 6.6.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D. No. 113 of 2004.2. The respondents were initially appointed as Laskers in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 on NMR basis in the office of the 2nd petitioner. Their services were terminated in the year 1992. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed O.A. No. 925 of 1992, before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The O.A. was allowed and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents. A writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, challenging the orders of the Tribunal, was dismissed. Ultimately, the respondents were reinstated into service.3. The respondents raised a dispute against the petitioners, in the matter of regularization of their services before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The same, ultimately, resulted in a reference being made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh ...
Bandi Venkateshwara Rao S/O Venkata Narayana, Vs. Sriram Chits Ltd. Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT320
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This C.R.P. was admitted on 19-1-2007 and in C.R.P.M.P. No. 180/2007 while granting interim stay, notice had been ordered.2. Judgment-debtors 4, 6 and 7 in E.P. No. 364/2005 in O.S. No. 823/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam are the Revision Petitioners. The said Judgment-debtors as petitioners filed E.A. No. 1857/2005 in E.P. No. 364/2005 in O.S. No. 823/2002 aforesaid under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for an order that the Decree cannot be executed against the said petitioners-Judgment- debtors and the 5th Judgment-debtor as well. The 5th Judgment- debtor is the 5th respondent in the said E.A. and also 5th respondent in the present C.R.P. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam after hearing the parties and after recording the respective stands taken by the parties, referred to the different provisions of ...
G. Bhaskara Rao Vs. Canara Bank Rep. by Manager
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT431
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21-11-2006 in I.A. No. 1582 of 2006 in O.S. No. 226 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby petition filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant to send Ex.A-3 - acknowledgement of debt dated 13-2-2001, to expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant, was dismissed.2. The suit is filed by the first respondent herein, for recovery of money. The petitioner/2nd defendant is the father of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has not taken any plea denying or disputing his signature on Ex.A-3 - acknowledgement of debt dated 13-2-2001, because he remained ex parte and has not filed any written statement. He is the best and proper person to say that his signature on Ex.A-3 is forged or not. But, for the reasons best known to him, he did not raise such plea by contesting the suit. Now, on behalf of the 1st defendant, the petitioner/2nd d...
Maddala Nagaratnam W/O Ranga Rao Vs. Maddaala Ranga Rao S/O Veeraswamy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)683
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner in M.C. No. 41 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram.2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the maintenance case. The petitioner filed the Maintenance Case for granting of maintenance and the trial Court granted Rs. 250/- towards maintenance per month after examining the evidence placed by both parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed C.R.P. No. 89 of 2001 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the C.R.P. by setting aside the order of the trial Court in M.C. No. 41 of 2000.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case contending that the Revision Court ought to have seen that the divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance; that the divorce deed was obtained behind the back of the petitioner and that there is no valid ...
Mavuri Satyavathi and anr. Vs. Penkey Venkata Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD305; 2009(1)ALT47
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed as against an order made in ATA No. 9 of 1996 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 13.4.1999.2. Sri S. Agasthya Sarma, learned Counsel representing revision petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif; Kakinada, in ATC No. 30 of 1988 and also the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, the appellate authority, in ATA No. 9 of 1996 and would maintain that having disbelieved the evidence of PW.2, recording such findings confirming tenancy rights on the respondents cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also incidentally referred to the statutory presumption and relied on Section 6 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, and further would maintain that to reverse such presumption, no acceptable evidence as such had been placed before the Court and in the light of the same, the orders made by both t...
D. Komaraiah Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD186; 2008(6)ALT784
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner joined as Junior Engineer El-Grade, in the service of the Singareni Collieries, in the year 1975. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer E2-grade, and thereafter, as Superintending Engineer.2. In the year 1998, the petitioner was in-charge of Arial Rope Way and Sand Gathering Station, in the Kothagudem area of the company. One of the employees working under him was a Tyandal in the category of Mazdoor, by name Mallaiah. He intended to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement in the year 1996, two years before he attained the age of superannuation. However, since it was found that his son cannot be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, due to his under age, the employee has withdrawn the proposal.3. On 29.4.1998, the wife of Mallaiah, by name B. Yelamma, submitted an application to the petitioner, stating that her husband died due to ill-health, on 27.2.1998, while in service, and that she may be extended the terminal...
Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and ors. Vs. Eedara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT617
ORDERP.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13318 of 1998, the State represented by its officers is in appeal before us. By the said order, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition declaring that Award No. 2 of 1993, dated 22.12.1993 pertaining to the acquisition of an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in R.S. No. 150/4 of Penikeru Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District, was illegal and liable to be set aside in the light of the violation of the mandatory requirement of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case germane to this adjudication are as follows:The State of Andhra Pradesh issued notification dated 27.07.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire a total extent of Ac.8-89 cents of land in Penikeru Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker se...
Mohd. Jani Miya Alias Khaja MoinuddIn Jani Vs. Koriginja (Varala) Rame ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2009AP14; 2009(3)ALT457
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 59 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent sought to rely upon a promissory note. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent raised objection as to the admissibility of the document, on the ground that it was not properly stamped. They pleaded that the 1st respondent had lifted a cancelled stamp from another document and pasted it on the suit promissory note. The second plea was that the signature on the stamp did not spread over to the document and in that view of the matter, there was no valid cancellation, as provided for under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). Through its order, dated 31.03.2008, the trial Court overruled the objections, mainly relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Valluru China Lakshmi v. Majji Dharma Rao : 2007(5)ALD199 . Hence, this...
Janaki Busappa and ors. Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)ALT284
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2.2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) by the revision petitioners being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit O.S. No. 68/2000 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience). The revision petitioners instituted the suit originally praying for the relief of declaration as well questioning the proceedings of defendant No. 1 vide letter No. P2/28/KNL/ 99, dt. 21-8-999 as null and void and inoperative and bad in law. The Tribunal in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 and D.W. 1, marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-26, Ex. B-1 to B-10 and on apprec...