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.
K. Nagarathnamma Vs. Sree Sreenivasa Financial Services Rep. by Its Pa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT167
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V. Vara Prasad Reddy, the learned Counsel representing Sri G. Sravankumar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant.2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 17.03.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which had been extended for a further limited period.3. Though the respondent/plaintiff had been served none represents him.4. Sri V. Vara Prasad Reddy, the learned Counsel representing Sri G. Sravankumar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for rejection of the plaint and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the suit is based on the strength of a promissory note, which is clearly barred by limitation and when that being so, the very numbering of the suit is bad in law. The learned Counsel also further pointed out the relevant paras and would maintain that even...
JamamuddIn Vs. Shri Ram Chits Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Foreman/Manager an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT177
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent. The other respondents i.e., respondents 2, 3 and 4 are shown as not necessary parties in the Civil Revision Petition.2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 31.03.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which was further extended for a further limited period.3. Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel for the revision petitionerfirst defendant, wculd maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, had not appreciated the respective stands taken by the parties in their pleadings properly while considering the application I.A. No. 729 of 2008 in O.S. No. 9 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, filed under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 o...
K. Venkata Reddy Vs. Apsrtc Rep. by Its Managing Director and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(15)ALT540
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying differential hire charges to the petitioner in respect of his bus bearing registration No. AP03 U 3263 as illegal.2. Heard Sri S. Arifullah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner hired his bus referred to above to respondent No. 1 Corporation. The said bus was plied up to 15.01.2007. From the averments contained in the affidavit, it appears that initially, the distance of the route was fixed at 340 kilometres per day to be plied on different routes emanating from Chittoor. By Office Order, dated 04.08.2001 passed by respondent No. 3, a sum of Rs. 14,023/- was recovered at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month from the fortnightly payment of the bills of the petitioner on the ground that there was a reduction of 31.8 kilometres in distance as against the notified dist...
K. Naveen Kumar Vs. M. Suresh Babu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT187
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 328 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, which was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 21.10.2002.2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2008 in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2007 on the file of the Court of l-Addl. District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 328 of 2002 was confirmed.3. The facts, in brief, are as under:The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 328 of 2002 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 18.04.1994 executed by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property and to put him in possession of the said property after evicting the tenants therefrom. The said suit was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 21.10.2002. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.12 of ...
K.H.V. Prasad and ors. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Princip ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)ALT71
ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. In this batch of cases the question posed for consideration is regarding the validity of AP Act 9 of 2008, which amended the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short 'HMC Act'), Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 901 dated 31.12.2007 issued thereunder.2. By the aforesaid amendment Act the HMC Act was amended by inserting Sections 452-A, 455-A and 455-AA apart from substituting Schedule U and V of the HMC Act. Similarly, with respect to the other allied Acts, in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Section 218-A was inserted and in the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 under Section 2h(h) high rise buildings was defined and Sections 41 and 43 were amended by inserting sub-sections. Further, Section 46 was substitu...
G. Raju Krishna Vs. P. Rama Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT19
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Respondents 1 to 4 filed I.P. No. 77 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, under Sections 6, 9, 11 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to adjudge the 5th respondent, as insolvent. It was stated that the 5th respondent borrowed substantial amounts from respondents 1 to 4, and to avoid the payment, he has executed a collusive sale deed, dated 23.08.2003, in favour of the appellant herein, in respect of Item (i) of B-Schedule and another sale deed in favour of the 6th respondent, in respect of Item (ii) of B-Schedule. Reference was made to various proceedings. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 oppose the petition. Through its order, dated 21.03.2006, the trial Court allowed the LP. and adjudged the 5th respondent, as insolvent. As a consequence, it appointed the Official Receiver to administer the schedule properties. The appellant and the 6th resp...
Bode Prasad and anr. Vs. Karlapudi Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT145
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 484 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioners and respondents 6 and 7, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners figured as defendants 2 and 3. They opposed the suit, on the strength of a Will, said to have been executed in their favour. The trial of the suit commenced, and the evidence on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 was almost over. Before closure of their evidence, the respondents filed I.A. No. 1491 of 2007, under Order 18, Rule 3 C.P.C., with a prayer to give them an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence, after completion of the evidence of the petitioners herein, and other defendants. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order dated 29-09-2008, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.2. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in ...
Sangani Bhushanamma (Prior to the 2nd Marriage Lanka Bhushanamma) Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT795
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 66 of 85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, had preferred the present Appeal. The said suit was filed originally as O.S. No. 59 of 83 on the file of District Munsif, Amalapuram. The said suit O.S. No. 66 of 85 was tried along with O.S. No. 36 of 85 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and D.W.1 to D.W.5, marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 and Exs.B-1 to B-13 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the suit O.S. No. 36 of 85 filed for the relief of perpetual injunction to be decreed and accordingly decreed the same with costs and the suit O.S. No. 66 of 85 filed for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same without costs with a further direction to recover the court fee from the plaintiff in the said suit. By virtue of the pe...
Goli Veerraju S/O Ramanna Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)ALT674
Goda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. S. Jagadish, the learned Counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 to 3 and Mr. M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent.2. The 32 petitioners assail the order bearing reference No. VI/502/99 dated 16.10.2003 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent - the Commissioner Appeals in the O/o the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad,. The revision was preferred to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 (for short 'the Inams Abolition Act, 1956'), aggrieved by the appellate order of the 2nd respondent in Inam Appeal No. 1/89 conforming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.1989 in RC. No. C1/88. The revision was allowed.3. The 4th respondent had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Inams Abo...
Bolla Sivanagi Reddy Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ8
B. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2004, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2001 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, whereunder and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was confirmed, however, the petitioner was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The accused is the husband of PW. 1. They were married in the year 1985 and set up their family at Veerlapalem, Guntur District. The case of PW. 1 is that they lived happily till they were blessed with a son and subsequently the accused started ill-treating her and assaulted her physically. At the time of their marriage, her parents gave Rs. 35,000/- to the accused towards dowry. However, the accused was d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »