Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
D.L. Manohar Vs. Osmania University Rep. by Its Registrar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALT430
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by D.L. Manohar, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, declaring the Memo dated 2.07.2008 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Academic), Osmania University, whereby and whereunder, the request of the petitioner for admission into third year B. Tech during the year 2008-09 has been rejected.2. The petitioner joined in the 3rd respondent college in the first year B.Tech course in the year 2001-02. He fell ill during 2002-03 and thereby, discontinued his studies. After recovery from ill-health, he sought for readmission into the college in the regular course. He submitted an application on 09.07.2008 requesting for readmission into the third year course. His request came to be rejected on the ground that even if he is admitted in third year course, he would not be in a position to complete the course within double the duration of the course. The said memo is under challenge in this...
Kurayagala Shaik Mahaboob Basha Vs. Shaik Ameer Saheb
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD155
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S No. 8 of 2007, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, or? the strength of a document dated 5.1.2004, Question arose, as to the classification of the document, in the context of payment of stamp duty. The petitioner contended that the document in question is only a receipt, as defined under Sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). The respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that the document also answers the description of bond, as; defined under Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act. Through its order, dated 26.10.2007, the trial Court held that the document is a bond. The said order is challenged in the CRP.2. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document in question is a receipt, and it does not contain the ingredients of a bond. He submits that the respondent has acknowledged the ...
Chenga Chinna Reddaiah Vs. Shaik Khalander
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)ALT653
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 56 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note, of the year 2002. The petitioner filed written-statement, pleading inter alia that the promissory note was fabricated and forged. An issue was framed thereon.2. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 606 of 2006, under Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C., with a prayer to send the disputed document for comparison by a Government Handwriting Expert. The I.A. was allowed, and the disputed document, together with the specimen signatures of the petitioner, were sent for comparison. The handwriting expert insisted that the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner be forwarded. The petitioner stated that there are no documents, of the year 2002, containing his signatures. The expert, in turn, returned the matter, expressing his inability. It was in this context, that the petitioner filed I.A. No. 4...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›