Andhra Pradesh Court December 2011 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.
Mrs. Meena Parikh and Another. Vs. the District Collector, Hyderabad D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:-1. At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of premises bearing Door Nos. 5-1- 459/3, 3A and 4 of Jambagh, Hyderabad. Notification, dated 23.10.2008, was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") by respondent No.1 proposing to acquire the said property. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 08.07.2009. Writ Petition No.16108 of 2009 was filed questioning the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners obtained limited stay and obviously after expiry of the interim order, award was passed in respect of which a notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 16.04.2011. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that even though they have appeared before respondent No.2 with documents of title, they were informed that since no one claimed title, the issue was refe...
K.Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Ms. Sudha Constructions, Rep. by Its Ma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
G. ROHINI, J.O R D E R :1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2875 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the VII-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Court below holding that the document dated 16.12.2004 produced by the plaintiff in evidence is insufficiently stamped and requires payment of proper stamp duty and penalty under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.2. The facts, in brief, are as under:The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2875 of 2006 against the respondents herein/defendants for specific performance of the "agreement of sale and construction" dated 16.12.2004. When the said agreement was sought to be marked as Ex.P-1 through P.W.1, an objection was raised by the counsel for the defendants as to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was ins...
K. Krishna Reddy Vs. K. Rajender and anr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.JUDGMENT:1. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by the judgment dated 28-12-2006 in C.C.No.343 of 2000, by the judgment dated 08-05-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court. The complainant filed the complaint against the accused alleging that the complainant, a construction businessman, and the accused running a printing press are friends and the accused approached the complainant on 08-09-1999 for financial assistance for four months for running the printing press and the complainant gave Rs.7,50,000/- on the same day. The accused did not repay in spite of demands but he executed a promi...
Swaroopa Rani @ Susan Charles Vs. M/S. R.R.K. Constructions a Partners ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.53/2008 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that opposite parties 2 and 3 are the absolute owners and possessors of the entire premises i.e. plot Nos.91,92 and 93in Sy No.191 of J.J.Nagar Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd., Alwal Village, Malkajgiri, R.R.District admeasuring 974 sq. yds. Opposite parties 2 and 3 entered into a development agreement dated 04-3-2004 with opposite party No.1 for construction of multi storied residential cum commercial apartment on sharing basis and the building is named as R.R.K.Gills Plaza. The complainant submitted that development agreement was in the custody of the opposite parties and they deliberately suppressed the same from the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, opposite party No.1 shall construct the proposed bu...
Pallavi Maternity and Nursing Home, Rep. by Dr.C.Padmini Reddy and Oth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.17/2008 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was under continuous prenatal care and treatment of opposite party No.1 during her pregnancy. She was of Primi Gravida. Her pregnancy was confirmed by the first opposite party on 10-5-2006 during her first visit and the complainant visited opposite party No.1 every month and following her advice. On 19-12-2006, the complainant gave birth to a male child with Mild Hydrocephalous and Meningocoele, apart from that the child also had congenital abnormality of Tallpus Equino Varus which opposite party No.1 failed to diagnose even after the birth of the child. It is the case of the complainant that the main objective of prenatal care is to ensure normal pregnancy with delivery of a healthy baby and the first opposite party was negligent in treating ...
Mohd. Haleem @ Sajid and Another Vs. Dr.ShafiuddIn Ali Ahmed and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.131 of 2010, questioning the order dated 22.03.2011 passed, in I.A.No.211 of 2010 in, by the learned III Additional District Jude, Warangal. 2. The aforesaid O.P. is filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') for grant of custody of minor ward - baby Shaika Ali Ahmed. Pending adjudication of the claim in the said O.P., they filed I.A.No.211 of 2010 under Section 12 of the Act for grant of interim custody of the minor ward. 3. The said I.A. is filed with the allegations which read as under: In the year 2004, the 1st respondent had to go to East Africa on his job assignment and the 2nd respondent was staying at Kazipet along with her in-laws. They were blessed with twins and as the Doctor advised to keep them separately to avoid infections, and as the petitioners are not having children, they were given custody of their minor wa...
Mohd. Haleem @ Sajid and Another Vs. Dr.ShafiuddIn Ali Ahmed and anr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.Order:1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.131 of 2010, questioning the order dated 22.03.2011 passed, in I.A.No.211 of 2010 in, by the learned III Additional District Jude, Warangal.2. The aforesaid O.P. is filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') for grant of custody of minor ward baby Shaika Ali Ahmed. Pending adjudication of the claim in the said O.P., they filed I.A.No.211 of 2010 under Section 12 of the Act for grant of interim custody of the minor ward.3. The said I.A. is filed with the allegations which read as under: In the year 2004, the 1st respondent had to go to East Africa on his job assignment and the 2nd respondent was staying at Kazipet along with her in-laws. They were blessed with twins and as the Doctor advised to keep them separately to avoid infections, and as the petitioners are not having children, they were given cus...
Lakkoji Mohana Rao, So. Late Annayya, a Vs. 1. Lakkoji Viswanadham, So ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.ORDER:1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21-09-2011, passed in I.A. No.115 of 2011 in O.S. No.55 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The Petitioner herein is the first Defendant in O.S. No.55 of 2005, first Respondent herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein are the Defendants Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner herein is the elder stepbrother of the first respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner herein, his mother and his elder sister filed O.S. No.87 of 1976 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam against the first respondent herein and his elder sister for partition of the family land and the house property, the said suit was decreed. In the Appeal i.e. in A.S. No.163 of 1978, the District Court, allowed the Appeal in part and accordingly final decree was passed in I.A. No.450 of 1978 a...
Challagulla Ratnamanikyam and Others Vs. Ms. D.N.Rao and Company, Auto ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.JUDGMENT:1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.2. The respondent - plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed O.S.No.33 of 1994 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Gudiwada, against Chllagulla Satyanarayana, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5, for recovery of Rs.40,000/-, with interest at 24% per annum, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 24.05.1988. During the pendency of the suit, Satyanarayana, the sole defendant, died and his legal representatives, the appellants herein, were brought on record. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-. for his family necessities, viz., to perform the marriage of his daughter and executed the promissory note on 24.05.1988. It was pleaded that unable to pay the amount within time, the defendant made a token payment of Rs.300/-, on 19.05.1991, and endorsed an acknowledgement of the de...
Mohd. Haleem Sajid, So.M.A.Lateef, an Vs. Dr.ShafiuddIn Ali Ahmed and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.Order:1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.131 of 2010, questioning the order dated 22.03.2011 passed, in I.A.No.211 of 2010 in, by the learned III Additional District Jude, Warangal.2. The aforesaid O.P. is filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') for grant of custody of minor ward baby Shaika Ali Ahmed. Pending adjudication of the claim in the said O.P., they filed I.A.No.211 of 2010 under Section 12 of the Act for grant of interim custody of the minor ward.3. The said I.A. is filed with the allegations which read as under: In the year 2004, the 1st respondent had to go to East Africa on his job assignment and the 2nd respondent was staying at Kazipet along with her in-laws. They were blessed with twins and as the Doctor advised to keep them separately to avoid infections, and as the petitioners are not having children, they were given cus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »