Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Rohini Footwears and Another Vs. the Vijaya Bank, West Marredpally Bra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of Inida Praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent bank in invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT) straight away without passing any orders under Section 13(4) of the Act and tying to take the Physical possession of the petitioner’s property bearing House No. 8-41/3, Ganeshpuri Colony, Kothapet, L.B. Ngar Municipality, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and one without jurisdiction. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of Inida Praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court...
Bandikatla Padmavathi Vs. Bandikatla Veera Brahma Chari and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14-9-2009 in O.S.No.193/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. During the course of evidence, defendant No.1 sought to present two documents in evidence. They are, document dated 29-4-1989, styled as family settlement arrangement and document dated 29-9-1989, styled as an arrangement. The plaintiff objected to the marking of these documents on the ground that they are in the nature of settlement deeds which create rights in the parties and therefore, they require stamp duty and registration. The lower Court has sustained the objection with reference to document dated 29-4-1989 and rejected the objection relating to document dated 29-9-1989. Feeling aggrieved by the said order to the extent of refusing to receive the document dated 29-9-1989, defendant No.1 filed the present Civil Revision Petition. At the hearing, Sri ...
M/S Suven Nishtaa Pharma Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Directo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
This petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in treating the petitioner’s CMD as 500 KVA with effect from the consumption month of October, 2009, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Condition 5.9 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) and also the principles of natural justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner applied for high tension power supply connection with a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 500 KVA in two phases of 250 KVA each. The 2nd respondent sanctioned the same and the petitioner paid the requisite amounts for release of the load. The first phase of 250 KVA was released on 18.12.2009. The second phase load was to be released nine months after the release of first phase. Accordingly, the due date of release of second phase was on 22.09.2009. As per Condition 5.9.2 of the GTCS after completing the pre-r...
The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer Vs. Mir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (Wakf Board, for short), Hyderabad, represented by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO, for short) laid this revision questioning the order dated 03.10.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (Wakf Tribunal, for short) under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act, for short).The respondent laid O.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal u/s.83 (2) of the Act to set aside the orders of the Wakf Board dated 07.06.2011 taking over the wakf institution by name Kohe-Imami-Zameen(AS) into its direct management by invoking Sec.64 of the Act. The respondent also sought for a declaration that such an action on the part of the Wakf Board is illegal and contrary to Sections 42, 63, 64 and 70 of the Act. 2. For the better appreciation of the controversy, it is desirable to state the rival contentions in considerable detail. I, therefore, propose to do so. 3. The case of the respondent is a) Kohe-Imami-Zameen (AS) was an ancient wakf inst...
G. Madhava Rao and Another Vs. Dr. G. Padma Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Common Judgment: The common judgment in O.S.No.111 of 1988 and O.S.No.163 of 1991 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderbad, dated 8-9-2000 led the plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 1988 to file CCCA.No.61 of 2001 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 1991 to file CCCA No.129 of 2001, who also filed his cross objections in CCCA.No.61 of 2001. The appellant in CCCA.No.61 of 2001 filed CCCAMP.No.11628 of 2004 to receive certified copy of a sale deed dated 3-4-1987 and CCCAMP.No.624 of 2007 to receive certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.257 of 1987 as additional evidence. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in O.S.No.111 of 1988. The factual background for the appeals is that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.111 of 1988 for partition of the ground floor and land of 525 square yards in House No.3-5-1091/15/1, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, covered by the plaint A-schedule and double storied building in 173 square yards in House No.7-2-623 (old No.2543-A) at R.P...
Tadishetty Padma Rao and Another Vs. Tadi Shetty Jaihind and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12-09-2011 in I.A.No. 745 of 2011 in O.S.No. 176 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE COURT ( FAST TRACK COURT). CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD. CRPMP 310/2012 :- Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased vacate the interim stay order dated 16.12.2011 passed in CRPMP No. 7763/2011 in CRP No. 5489/2011. CRPMP 7763/2011:- Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS NO. 176 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CRP.) ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 12-9-2011 in I.A.No.745/2011 in O.S.No.176/2007 on the file of the learned XIII Additi...
Muralidhar Welfare Society and Others Vs. the Government of Andhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
The following Draft Variation to the roads notified in the Revised Master Plan 2020 for Ramchandrapuram zone was proposed by the 3rd respondent-State Government vide Memo No.10720/I/2010-5, MA and UD, dated 3.12.2010 in exercise of its powers under Section 15(1) of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for brevity ‘the Act’). “The Master Plan road of 45 mtrs. wide road passing through Sy.Nos.97 and 98 of Madeenaguda Village and in Sy.Nos.54 and 320/2 of Chandanagar (V) up to a stretch of about 450 mts. is now proposed to be re-aligned along the existing 9 mtsrs. wide road by widening on both sides which passes through Sy.Nos.320/1 and 319 of Chandanagar Village upto stretch of about 450 Mtrs. in place of 45 Mts., deletion portion is designated adjacent land use as per Master Plan, subject to out come of the Court cases pending if any.” 2. The said proposal was published in the extraordinary issue of A.P. Gazette No.693, dated 6.12.2010 inviting...
Pereddy Raghava Reddy Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
ORDER: The petitioner challenges memo, dated 26.04.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Stamps, 2nd respondent herein and the consequential proceedings, dated 06.05.2010 issued by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, 4th respondent herein.The facts, that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, are as under: The petitioner purchased a plot of about 1000 square yards in Survey No.52 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal from Syed Zaheeruddin and Mohammad Yousuf Ali through a sale deed, dated 18.01.2005. His vendors in turn purchased it from Sri Harish Madan on 18.03.1995. The latter purchased the plot from one Sri Prabhakar Reddy through sale deed, dated 31.03.1990. Prabhakar Reddy in turn purchased it from M/s Kasthopa Corporation through a sale deed dated 30.04.1987, bearing document No.4105 of 1987.Petitioner purchased another plot in the immediate neighbourhood from the same vendors on the same d...
Bejjanki Krishnaiah and Another Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by Its Pri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
The two petitioners herein have responded to the notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar for appointing various dealers to the fair price shops in Karimnagar Revenue Division. 28 shops were thus notified. The 1st petitioner applied for the shop at Vadloor Village of Bejjanki Mandal in Karimnagar District, while the 2nd petitioner has applied for Chilapur Village, Bejjanki Mandal. The written test was conducted for 50 marks on 25.08.2011. Several candidates have taken the said exam on that day. The answer scripts were evaluated and such of those candidates who have secured 20+ marks are declared as qualified for the next stage of selection process, i.e. viva voce test for 50 marks. It is found that both the writ petitioners have qualified in the written test, by securing 20 or more number of marks out of 50. But, so far as the other candidates, who have applied for these very shops, are concerned, no other candidate has qualified by securing 20 or more number o...
Alavilli Sankara Tataji @ Jimbo Vs. Smt. Bylla Agnesh Puspa Ratnam and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. Both the appeals arise out of identical facts and circumstances and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.498 of 2010 is taken as lead case. 2. The respondent filed complaint seeking relief for refund of membership fee and for a sum of `4,00,000/- towards compensation besides the relief for allotment of the plot and execution of the sale deed. 3. The respondent joined as member in the scheme,Vidyanagar House Sites Scheme floated by the appellants in the year, 1996 and the respondent and the appellants entered into an agreement as also the appellants allotted plot bearing number 188 in favour of the respondent. The respondent paid an amount of `150/- towards membership fee on 24.08.1996 and `500/- each on 9.10.1996, 14.11.1996, 8.12.1996 and 2.02.1997. The respondent claimed that he became winner in the draw of lots held in the month of March,1997 and it was agreed that after being declared winner in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »