Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Sri Balaji Chicken Centre, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. Nadakuditi Kutum ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT450
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant filed O.S. No. 1208 of 2005 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction, as regards running of a chicken centre at the suit schedule premises. After conducting trial, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent filed A.S. No. 156 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Through judgment, dated 16-03-2009, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court, for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the very approach of the lower appellate Court is defective, inasmuch as a specific point was framed as to whether the matter must be remanded. He further submits that the discussion by the lower appellate Court throughout the judgment ha...
Arvind Chenji Vs. Krisnaveni
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)ALT395
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place, on 11-09-1989. They were also blessed with two children. In the recent past, differences have arisen between them and the same resulted in institution of proceedings, under the relevant provisions of law, against each other.2. The petitioner filed F.CO.P. No. 847 of 2000 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for the relief of dissolution of the marriage. In that O.P., the respondent filed I.A. No. 101 of 2001, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), for grant of maintenance. The LA. was allowed, on 02-11-2001. Interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-, per month, was allowed, not only in favour of the respondent, but also to the two minor children. Ultimately, the O.P., was allowed, on 28-06-2005.3. The respondent filed E.P. No. 50 of 2008 in I.A. No. 101 of 2001 for recovery of arrears of maintenance granted to her with interest at 24% per ...
Meesala Durga Rao Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ652
ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 29.01.2004 in Crl.A. No. 58 of 2003 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad in C.C. No. 165 of 1997, dated 31.03.2003. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days separately for each of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 392 IPC.2. The petitioner herein shall be referred as accused hereinafter for the sake of convenience.3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.02.1996 at about 08.30 p.m. while PW.1 was taking meals and his wife, two sons and daughter were watching TV, four unknown persons representing themselves as members of the Janarakshana Part...
Sai Engineering Contractors Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT417
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This application by M/s.Sai Engineering Contractors - a firm represented by its Managing Director under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act, for brevity) seeks appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve dispute in relation to and arising out of the Agreement, dated 23.01.2006 between applicant and respondents.2. The applicant is a contractor inter alia undertaking various works with Railways. Construction of Steel Structural Foot Over Bridge (FOB) on the northern side connecting TTD choultry and reservation complex at Tirupathi was entrusted to applicant under an agreement, dated 23.01.2006. The same is governed by terms and conditions of tender notification, contract entered into between the parties, and General Conditions of Contract (GCC) as well as Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). Clauses 63 and 64 of GCC provide for arbitration in the event of disputes between parties. Be that as it is, the work entrusted to applicant i...
Bodapati Markonda Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Distri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT112
Anil R. Dave, C.J.1. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party and, therefore, he may be permitted to be deleted. He has further submitted that even while hearing the writ petition, no notice was issued to respondent No. 3 before the petition was rejected.2. Permission for deletion of respondent No. 3 is granted Respondent No. 3 stands deleted.3. Admit. At the request of the learned advocates, the appeal is finally heard today.4. The appellant - original petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 02-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 13020 of 2009, whereby his petition praying for quashing the proceedings dated 19-06-2009 on the file of respondent No. 2 had been rejected.5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant - petitioner owns a borewell. By an order dated 19-06-2009, the Mandal Revenue Inspector was directed to seize the borewell dug by the appellant without issuanc...
Perneti Nirmalamma and ors. Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by Its Managing Dire ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT781
B. Chandra Kumar, J.1. Since both these C.M.As i.e., C.M.A. No. 2664 of 2003 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, and C.M.A. No. 2922 of 2003 filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C challenging awarding of compensation in favour of the claimants, arise out of the order dated 25-04-2003 made in O.P. No. 404 of 1997 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge, Nellore) (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.3. This case is yet another example, to show how a single incident destroys all the hopes and aspirations of a well settled family. The first claimant had lost her husband P. Surendra Reddy, who was aged about 29 years on the date of accident (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased'). The first claimant was aged only 20 years and the second claimant was aged about four months on the date...
Razia SirajuddIn Vs. Eskay Builders and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT733
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 2054 of 2005 in the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner and the second respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Shortly thereafter, it filed I.A. No. 238 of 2006 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit it to amend the plaint. The purport of the amendment was to incorporate the prayer for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15.11.1993. The application was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds, including that of limitation and maintainability. Through its order, dated 08.03.2007, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment would have the effect of permitting a relief, which is clearly barred by limitation. He submits that the agreement is of the year...
Dammalapati Subba Rao Vs. Bobbili Peda Nanchara Prasad (Died) Per L.Rs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT634
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Dammalapati Subba Rao, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 127 of 84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, had preferred this Appeal being aggrieved of the relief of refund of consideration only in stead of ordering specific performance.2. The said suit was filed praying for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale dated 25-7-1982 executed by 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 28,350/- in respect of the plaint schedule land, or in the alternative to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 35,265/- towards principal and interest @ 12% per annum and for costs. The learned Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam after settling the Issues and in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, D.W.1 to D.W.4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 and came to the conclusion that the relief of specific performance to be negatived, but however granted the decree ...
Badineni Munenna Vs. Veeramareddy Lakshmi Devi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)ALT731
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission in these Civil Revision Petitions on 30.06.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period and it was subsequently extended for a further limited period.2. Sri M. Subba Reddy, entered appearance on behalf of respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Smt Abburi Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Counsel representing petitioner/defendant in both the Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that both the suits are based on the strength of two different promissory notes. One filed by the wife and another filed by the husband and in view of the commonality of the defence and also commonality of the witnesses to be examined, it would be just and proper if both the suits are clubbed and consolidated, but however, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, dismissed the said application. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even if the consolid...
M.Y. Maharshi and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)ALT224
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The appellants herein are the unsuccessful petitioners, who sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6598 of 2007, dated 22-4-2007 dismissing their writ petition where they sought for Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the revision petition stated to have been filed by them vide D1/3/2007/DI/ROR/848 under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as expeditiously as possible.2. The grievance of the petitioners, in short, was that even though they filed the said revision on 8-2-2007, the same is not being disposed of and therefore they sought for expeditious disposal. The learned Single Judge did not accede to the said relief on the ground that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for such purpose whereby imposing specified time on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »