Andhra Pradesh Court January 2012 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.
Maloth Veeru @ Heeralal and Others Vs. Guguloth Mangi W/O. Balu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.273 o19. 1-2012 Maloth Veeru @ Heeralal and others Guguloth Mangi w/o. Balu Counsel for petitioners: Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondent : Sri P.V. Ramana ORDER: The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.108/2009 filed by the respondent, filed this Civil Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23-12-2009 in I.A.No.146/2009 in O.S.No.108/2009 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), at Bhadrachalam (for short "the lower Court"). The petitioners and the respondent have competing claims with respect to Ac.0-26 guntas of land in Chunchupalli village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District (for short "the suit property"). While it is the case of the petitioners that they have become the lawful owners of the suit property having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 19-8-2009 executed by its lawful owner, the respondent pleaded that it is her self-acqu...
G. Sudhakar Rao, Vs. M/S. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd.,v
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25186 OF 199.19-01-2012 G. Sudhakar Rao, M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Ltd.,Visakhapatnam and another Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu. Counsel for the Respondents: M.S. Rajalingam, Standing Counsel for BHPV. Cases referred : --- 1. AIR 198.SC 1829.2. AIR 198.SC 854.3. 1988 (1) ALT D.B.151.4. AIR 199.SC 101.5. AIR 200.SC 241.JUDGEMENT: The petitioner was an employee under the respondents. He was working as a Job Recorder by 23-08-1994. The petitioner initially joined the service in the respondents' organization on 06-06-1972 as Grade-IV Fitter.2. When his services were terminated by invoking clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the lien through orders dated 30-09-1999, the petitioner came up with this petition claiming that the order of the employer that the petitioner was deemed to have left the services of the respondent was incorrect and is liable to be set aside.3. The petitioner, as already pointed out...
K. Narayana Reddy Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tadipat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.10/2008 on the file of District Forum, Anantapur, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who is working as an Assistant Engineer (Mech.), A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot, Tadipatri of Anantapur Dist and is resident of D.No.12/2/95, Hari Hara Nagar, 2nd Cross, Anantapur Town is having savings A/c. No.0001190035000 with opposite party no.1 at Tadipatri Branch. The complainant took ATM cum Debit Card for the said account with the number 6220180092300067045 and used to operate the same with the PIN Mailer furnished by the opp.party no.1. On 24.5.2006 some unknown offenders committed theft in complainants house and took away some valuables along with his R.T.C Warrant Card, ATM Card along with its PIN Mailer. The complainant immediately preferred a complaint about the said theft before Anantapur I Town (Crime) Police Station and the same was register...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Its Branch Manager and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Oral Order: (Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Honble Member.) 1. The opposite party insurance company is the appellant. The first respondents husband during his life time obtained insurance policy of Pravasa Bharatiya Yojana policy with the appellant. The appellant issued the insurance policy bearing number 021101/48/05/400826 with its commencement from 6-02-2007 valid till 5-02-2009 for a sum assured amount of `5 lakh. He died in a road accident on 26-11-2007 in Saudi Arabia. After the death of her husband, the first respondent along with her children, i.e., the respondent no.2 to 4 requested the appellant insurance company by getting issued notice dated 8-04-2008 to pay the benefits under the insurance policy. The appellant insurance company requested the respondents on 6-05-2008 to submit the original documents such as insurance policy, claim form, document showing the accidental death of the insured, employers certificate, certificate showing the transportation of dead body, receip...
Shravan Kumar and ors Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
N. RAVI SHANKAR, J.ORDER:-1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code) the petitioners herein who are A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.1021 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate (Mobile Court), Ranga Reddy District (trial court), are seeking quashing of the said case against them.2. The aforesaid case has been instituted by Food Inspector, Division-I, Ranga Reddy District, and the offence alleged against the petitioners is sale of adulterated groundnut oil punishable under Section 2(ia)(m) and Section 7(i) r/w Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act). The 1st petitioner/A-1 is said to be the vendor of the groundnut oil. The complaint reads that the sample was lifted on 07.07.2004. The public analyst report of the State Food Laboratory (SFL) is dated 10.08.2004. That report shows that the sample did not conform to the standard of beliers test (turbidity temperature -...
B.Venu Madhav, So.Late Sri B.Mohan Rao Vs. National Consumer Disputes ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) 1. In this writ petition the order dated 14.10.2011 in Revision Petition No.478 of 2007 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereafter, the National Commission) is assailed as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, with a further prayer to set aside the same. 2. The brief fact of the matter to the extent necessary for in limine disposal of the writ petition is as follows. 3. The petitioner is Managing Partner of M/s.Rajyalakshmi Constructions, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. The said firm constructed 'Rajyalakshmi Apartments' in Habsiguda, Hyderabad in 1996. The second respondent and his wife purchased plot No.208. The same was alienated under a sale deed dated 17.8.1996. Clause 4 thereof provided that the purchaser shall have the right to enjoy and use along with other co-owners the open land, roadways, approaches and all other means of ingress and egress and shall have all the rights, title and inte...
Sri Guruvammagari Santhosh Reddy and Two Vs. the State of A.P., Rep.by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. Petitioners 1 and 2 are minor children of the third petitioner. Petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1037 of 2000 through their mother, in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, against their father and paternal grand mother. The suit schedule property included Acs.7.19 gts of land including Acs.4.06 gts situated in Survey No.436/A and 438/A of Vattinagulapally Village of Rajendranagar Mandal. A preliminary decree was passed on 16.08.2005 directing that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for 2/6th share in the suit schedule properties. I.A.No.341 of 2008 is pending for final decree.2. The first respondent issued notification, dated 13.12.2005, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {"the Act" for brevity}, proposing to acquire Acs.11.31 gts land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village for the purpose of laying o...
The Guntur City House Construction Coope Vs. the Tahsildar, Guntur Man ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society. It has acquired properties in various survey numbers of Koritapadu village, Guntur mandal. The land purchased is said to have been converted into plots by obtaining necessary permission and clearance from the concerned authorities. The petitioner intended to execute sale deeds in favour of its members by transferring the plots so carved out. The petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Koritapadu, Guntur District, the second respondent herein seeking necessary information for the purpose of presenting the documents for registration. In the process, the second respondent has furnished a copy of the proceedings dated 30.08.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Guntur District, the first respondent herein through which a list of endowments lands of Koritapadu Revenue Village of Guntur Mandal was furnished. Some of the properties acquired by the petitioner figured in that list. Since the inclusion of those lands would a...
Durgam Anitha, Wo.Late Durgam Darshanam Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) 1. The petitioners are allegedly owners of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in S.No.150 situated at Doolapally village of Qutbullapur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District District, by virtue of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 06.4.1998 issued to them under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. They statedly purchased another extent of Acs.0.20 guntas in the same survey number under registered sale deed dated 30.12.2002 from Smt.M.Suwarna Kumari, who also had ORC in her favour. There was civil litigation between the petitioners and the third respondent as manifested in two suits being O.S.No.108 of 2009 filed by the petitioners and O.S.No.807 of 2009 filed by the third respondent. In this writ petition, mention of the details of those suits is not necessary. 2. The first respondent provided loan and credit facilities to M/s.Aishwarya Art Creations Private Limited and the second respondent given security by mortgaging the ...
Ms. Global Impex Represented by Its Pro Vs. Ms. Greenply Industries Lt ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15-7-2011 in I.A.No.2009/2008 in O.S.No.55/2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge- Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.55/2008 filed by the respondent, alleging infringement of copyright. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii) that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause arose in respect of the defendant as shown in the plaint and (iii) that the copyright of the plaintiff was not extended and the same was not in force when the suit was filed. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. At the hearing, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel ...