Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Ramulu and Others Vs. Smt. Sumitra Bai (Died) and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is third in succession in respect of a dispute between the same parties. One Mr. Basaiah, who is the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 4, was the protected tenant in respect of Acs.3.29 guntas of land in Survey No.121 situated at Madharam Village of Pargi Mandal. After his demise, ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) was granted to the petitioners herein who claimed through the said Basaiah by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi. The petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi for putting them in possession in respect of the said land. By order dated 15.05.1987, the Mandal Revenue Officer has directed the petitioners to be in possession. This order was questioned by the respondents, who are the original land owners, in an appeal filed under Section 90 of the Act before the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The said appeal ...
The Secretary, Siddhartha Academy of General and Technical Education a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Common Order: All these Writ Petitions can be dealt with together and decided, as they raise a common question of law for determination. The Managing Committee of a private unaided Engineering College and the Principal of the said college are the petitioners. They challenge the correctness of the orders passed on 31.07.2000 by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 reversing the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the A.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The individual employee, at whose instance the case was initiated, has been impleaded as respondent to each of these Writ Petitions apart from the official respondents. An educational society, registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, is got up for the purpose of running educational institutions imparting both general and technical education. This society has established an Engineering College at Kanuru, Vijayawada in the year 1977 after obtaining necessary approval...
L. Rajendra Naidu Vs. A.K. Dass
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 27-3-2012 in I.A.No.109/2012 in O.S.No.8/2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttoor. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of money from the respondent. He has filed I.A.No.109/2012 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code”), for attachment of the retirement benefits of the respondent before Judgment. The respondent resisted the said application by placing reliance on proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code and the Judgment in RadheyShyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank and another (AIR 2009 S.C. 930). The lower Court accepted the plea of the respondent and dismissed the application on the ground that the retirement benefits having been exempted under the provisions of Section 60(1) of the Code, cannot be attached. At the hearing, the learned Counsel representing Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in ...
Smt. R. Latha Vs. G. Narayana and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.02.2012, in E.P.No.45 of 2011 in O.S.No.2720 of 2004, on the file of the learned X Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. Even though notice was served on respondent No.2, he has not entered appearance. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have entered appearance through an advocate. However, at the hearing, their counsel is not present. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for a decree to direct the respondents not to make any attempt to remove the common wall existing in between the properties of the petitioner and respondents and to restrain them from putting any ventilators or windows towards her property with a further direction to them to remove the windows and ventilators erected illegally, by way of mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed by the learned X Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil cou...
Gudur Seetharam (Died) Per Lr Gudur Venu Vs. Pathipaka Sudharshan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the sole surviving defendant in OS.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, aggrieved by docket order, dated 19-12-2011, passed therein. A few facts, which need to be stated for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as under: The respondent has initially filed OS.No.98 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein and his father Gudur Seetharam. In IA.No.239 of 2010 filed by him, an ad interim injunction was granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. After the defendants filed the written statement, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration of title wherein the market value of the suit schedule property was shown as Rs.11,52,000/- and the suit was revalued at half of the market value which came to ...
Jonnalagadda Ravi Sankar Vs. Jakka Rama Krishna Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
The petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is his father-in-law. It appears that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is strained. The petitioner filed O.S.No.41 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 13.07.2003. According to him, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the property, offered the same to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- and executed an agreement of sale, on receiving a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. The respondents filed written statement opposing the suit. Issues were framed and the trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.2, the scribe of the agreement was examined. Though in the chief-examination, he supported the version of the petitioner, he appears to have stated something different in the cross-examination. Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed I.A.No.804 of 201...
P. Hanumantha Rao (Died) Per L.Rs. and Others Vs. P. Satyanarayana (Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This revision is the continuation of a prolonged litigation. The deceased 1st petitioner, by name, P. Hanumantha Rao filed O.S.No.63 of 1961 in the Court of the District Munsif, Ongole, against the deceased1st respondent, by name, P. Satyanarayana for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was dismissed with costs on 03-02-1967 and the decree became final. To recover the costs awarded in the suit, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.33 of 1975. The 1st petitioner was entitled to half share in a house bearing Door No.50 of Koppolu Village, 6th Ward, Ongole. The undivided half share of the 1st petitioner was brought to sale in the execution and the 1st respondent emerged as the highest bidder. 2. To recover possession of the undivided half share, brought in sale in the execution, the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.486 of 1990 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, for partition and separate possession. A preliminary decree was passed in his favour on 27-03-...
Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah and Others Vs. Ch. Sridhar Reddy and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
The petitioners filed O.S.No.152 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. They placed reliance upon an unregistered sale deed, dated 08.06.1959, said to have been executed by one Mr.Gulam Rasool. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioners intended to file a Photostat copy of the unregistered deed, dated 08.06.1959. According to them, the original of that document was presented for impounding before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, (RDO), and after the document was impounded, it was lost in the year 2000. It was pleaded that the Office of the RDO, kept a Photostat copy of the original and on an application filed by them, he issued a certified copy of the document available with him. The same was sought to be filed as secondary evidence by filing I.A.No.255 of 2009, under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short R...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Rep. by Its Divisional ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Aggrieved by the order in W.C. No.8 of 2008 dated 15-05-2010 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the learned commissioner allowing the W.C. in part awarded a compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- to respondent Nos.1 to 7 - applicants as against their claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, the appellant - Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant herein is insurer of the mini lorry bearing No.AP37 - W - 8809 belonging to respondent No.8 herein and they are Opposite Parties - II and I respectively before the learned Commissioner, and respondent Nos.1 to 7, who are the applicants, are wife, children and mother of the deceased Shaik Dawood Saheb, who died in the accident. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 4. The c...
Pillala Chennakesavulu Vs. Pillala Reddikumar and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 15-09-2011, in IA.No.93 of 2011 in OS.No.18 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. I have heard Mr.K.Venkat Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.C.Sumon, learned Counsel for the respondents. The respondents have filed the abovementioned suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2, his father is defendant No.1 and his mother is defendant No.3 in the said suit. As the defendants did not file written statement, they were set ex parte. IA.No.315 of 2009 was filed on behalf of all the defendants including the petitioner herein for setting aside the ex parte order. The said IA was allowed by the lower Court permitting all the defendants to file a written statement. The parents of the petitioner i.e., defendants 1 and 3 have filed separate written statements in December, 2007. However, no written statement was filed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »