Andhra Pradesh Court June 2009 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.
P. Chandrasekhar S/O P. Sharavanna Vs. Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi W/O Late T. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT457
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This Revision is directed against the orders dated 08-04-2004 in O.S.No.10 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal whereby, the suit was returned holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction and the same shall be presented before the appropriate Court.2. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner herein instituted the said suit for recovery of money of Rs. 3,51,333/- on the foot of a promissory note. On notice, the respondents put in their appearance, engaged an Advocate and a detailed written statement was also filed. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below settled the issues. However, during the course of trial, P.W.1 filed his chief examination affidavit wherein he has stated that the entire transaction took place at Karnataka only. On the strength of the said pleading, an additional issue was also framed regarding the territorial jurisdiction. While answering the said issue, in affirmative, the trial Court r...
V. Dharmavenamma Vs. C. Subrahmanyam Mandadi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT462
ORDERR. Kantha Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 29.08.2006 passed in E.P. No. 49 of 2003 in O.S. No. 76 of 1999 by the Junior Civil Judge, Nagari.2. The unsuccessful decree holder is the revision petitioner. She obtained a money decree for an amount of Rs. 54,000/- and filed execution petition against the respondent/judgment debtor under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. seeking realization of the decretal amount by means of arrest and detention of the respondent in civil prison alleging that having sufficient means to repay the decretal amount, in spite of the request of the decree holder, the respondent has been deliberately refusing to pay the decretal amount. Pursuant to the notice issued by the executing Court, the respondent/judgment debtor made his appearance, filed his counter contending inter alia that he is aged 67 years and has been suffering from old age ailments like asthma, heart disease etc., and he is a small farmer owning meager extent of...
Airabelli Prabhakar Rao Vs. Emmadi Koteshwar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT35
ORDERR. Kantha Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order, dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Warangal in Rc. No. E5/412/ 2004.2. The revision petitioner filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Warangal under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 r/w Rule 23(1) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal on 22.11.2004 in File No. A/959/03.3. The brief facts relevant for consideration in the revision petition may be stated as follows:The revision petitioner having purchased schedule mentioned land in Sy. No. 492 admeasuring Ac.2.15 guntas situate in Waddepally villge of Hanmakonda mandal of Warangal District from one R. Ramachandram on 09.04.1980 under unregistered sale deed applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda for regularization and issuance of pattadar pass book in his favour. Considering his application, the...
ESi Corporation rep. by Its Regional Director Vs. the Commissioner for ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT340
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation represented by its Regional Director is the petitioner herein and it is assailing the order dated 30.05.1998 passed in W.C. No. 98 of 1996, whereby the first respondent herein while awarding compensation of an amount of Rs. 73,668/- to respondents 3 to 5 herein fixed up the said liability on the petitioner as well as the second respondent i.e. the employer, as arbitrary and illegal.2. The brief facts are that one Kondareddi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was working as machine operator in M/s. Zenith Granites (Pvt.) Limited, the 2nd respondent herein, and comes within the meaning of workman under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 09.10.1994 after attending to his regular duties at 8.00 pm while he was going to the house situated within the campus of the second respondent, met with a live electrical wire and died on account of electrocut...
Shaik Hasan Saheb Vs. A.V. Subba Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT242
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 770 of 2002 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed, and after it became final, the respondent filed E.P. No. 46 of 2003. In that E.P., the petitioner filed E.A. No. 658 of 2004, under Rule 2 of Order 21 C.P.C., with a prayer to record full satisfaction of the decree. It was mentioned that several suits were filed by the respondent against the petitioner, and the subject-matter of all the suits, including the one, in O.S. No. 770 of 2002, was settled for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/-. A deed of settlement is said to have been executed on 28-09-2003, mentioning the number of various suits, and when it was found that O.S. No. 770 of 2002 was not included in it, a supplemental document was executed on 30-09-2003. With these averments, the petitioner prayed for recording full satisfaction of the decree, in O.S. No. 770 of 2002. The respond...
G. Manohar Vs. Indian Bank (Adb), Nagiri Branch
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)ALT770
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition relates to action of the respondent-bank in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) (for short ' the SARFAESI Act') in respect of a loan availed by the father of the petitioner.2. The facts stated are that the father of the petitioner has started the business under the name and style of M/s. Srinivasa Borewells as a Proprietor and secured loan of Rs. 2,16,000/- by mortgage of the property from the respondent-Bank on 13-6-1981 and purchased a Bore-Well Rig. When he committed default in payment of instalments, the respondent bank filed O.S. No. 5 of 1992 before the court of the Subordinate Judge, Puttur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,75,326/- by sale of mortgaged property. In the said suit father and mother of the petitioner were made as defendants 2 and 3. The said suit...
M. Rangaiah Vs. T.V. Satyanarayana Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT709
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 05-03-2007, passed by the Court of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 1586 of 2005.2. The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') filed the suit, against the appellant, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16-08-2005. He pleaded that he is the owner of a Flat in the ground floor of premises, bearing No. 7-1-414/A/22, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad, that the appellant is the owner of Flat, bearing No. B6/F2(LIG), in the first floor, and that when the same was offered for sale, he agreed to purchase it for a consideration of Rs. 6,25,000/. It was stated that advance of Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 25-07-2005, and on 16-08-2005, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid. An agreement of sale was said to have been executed on the same day, incorporati...
Kuppam Satyanarayana Vs. Beduru Siva Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT285
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2008 in E.P. No. 94 of 2006 in O.S. No. 376 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadpatri.2. The Revision petitioner is the decree-holder who obtained a money decree against the respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 13,621/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs. 12,000/-from the date of suit till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of decree till the date of realization.3. On the basis of the said decree, the decree-holder/Revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 94 of 2006 on 17.08.2006 by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,068/-towards the decretal amount together with interest. Pursuant thereto, though a warrant was issued against the judgment-debtor, the same could not be executed. Subsequently fresh warrant was issued on 10.08.2008. The decre...
Koneti Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Guladurthi Lakshmi Devi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT371
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two second appeals are preferred by the same person. The sole respondents, in the two second appeals, are wife and husband. The nature of transactions, which are the subject matters of the second appeals, is similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Sri G. Seetharamireddy, respondent in S.A. No. 1256 of 2008, is the maternal uncle of the appellant, and husband of Smt. Lakshmi Devi (respondent in S.A. No. 1255 of 2008). Seetharamireddy and his wife filed O.S. Nos. 89 of 2002 and 145 of 2002, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for recovery of Rs. 2,57,500/- and Rs. 1,71,867/-, respectively. It was pleaded that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, from Seetharamireddy, on 14-06-1999, and executed a promissory note for repayment thereof. In the other suit, the plea was that the appellant borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/-, from Lakshmi Devi, on 27-09-1999, and executed a promissory note.3. The appellant filed separate writt...
S. Venkata Ramanaiah and anr. Vs. S. Venkateswarlu Gupta and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT146
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20.4.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period.2. Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 6 in the Civil Revision Petition are specified as not necessary parties to the petition.3. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, totally erred in allowing the application by granting permission to the first respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder without considering the fact that two years ago written statement had been filed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the first respondent/plaintiff having been unsuccessful in obtaining injunction thought of this application only with a view to fill up gaps by taking inconsistent pleas. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise they failed to file rejoinder w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »