Andhra Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments

Mohammed Abdul Ahmad Vs. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor @ Ahmed and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The observations made by many lawyers and jurists, whether in the course of proceedings, or in the discussions outside, that the amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C., has generated more problems, than what it proposes to solve; are in a way, fortified by this case. The 2nd respondent herein by name, Kadiyala Appa Rao, filed O.S.No.25 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam against the 1st respondent (defendant No.1), and the petitioner (defendant No.2) for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-06-1993, in respect of the suit schedule property. After the pleadings became complete, issues were framed and the trial of the suit commenced. The evidence of the 2nd respondent, i.e., plaintiff was concluded. The next stage was recording of evidence, on behalf of the 1st respondent. He filed an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination (for short 'the affidavit'), as provided for under Rule 4 of Order XVIII C.P.C. On the basis of its contents, Ex.B-1 w...

M/S. Tumbi Enterprises Vs. M/S. Taramandal Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No.6-3-639/640 of Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Originally, he was tenant of Smt.Fareeda, since the year 1979. The respondent herein issued a notice, dated 20.07.1993, to the petitioner, stating that the property in question was purchased by them, on 24.01.1992, and thereby, the tenancy stood attorned. The petitioner states that when he verified from the landlady, she flatly denied the execution of any sale deed and faced with the situation, he filed R.C.No.689 of 1993 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 9(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. On the strength of the orders passed therein, he continued to deposit the rents to the credit of the RC. The respondent filed O.S.No.1956 of 1997 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises. On a plea raised by the petitioner, that the r...

H.C.L. Agro Power Limited Vedadri Village, Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(6)ALD1

This Writ Petition has been filed by HCL Agro Power Limited, Vadadari, Krishna District, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the fire wood under transport to the petitioner company in the guise of contravention of A.P. Water, Land Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and to declare Respondent No.4 as not notified or specified to be the Designated Officer under the Act and for a direction to Respondent No.5 to refrain from in any way proceeding against the petitioner-company in the transportation of specified exempted species of fire wood to the premises of the petitioner's factory. 2. The petitioner company was established for generating electrical energy of the capacity of 6 MW by employing a process consisting of bio mass material such as waste wood, Julie flora, agricultural waste such as paddy husk, corn stems etc. Waste wood includes Neem, T...

R. Madan Mohan Guptha Vs. Mohd. SharfuddIn and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.39 of 2011 before the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of Acs.6.26 guntas of land in survey No.599 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Nalgonda District. It was alleged that the property belongs to a wakf and that the 1st respondent is an interested person. It was alleged that the petitioner herein, who was a Sarpanch of the village, has made attempts to occupy the land, as part of his real estate activity. I.A.No.159 of 2011 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for temporary injunction. The Tribunal issued notices to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner filed a counter, opposing the I.A. He pleaded that the land in question does not belong to wakf, and on the other hand, it belong to Government. It is also stated that way back in the year 1985, the land was divided into plots and pattas w...

R.Madan Mohan Guptha Vs. Mohd.Sharfuddin

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.310 o06. 09.2012 R.Madan Mohan Guptha Mohd.Sharfuddin Counsel for petitioner: Sri D.Vijaya Chandra Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Sri M.T.Ghori HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.39 of 2011 before the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of Acs.6.26 guntas of land in survey No.599 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Nalgonda District. It was alleged that the property belongs to a wakf and that the 1st respondent is an interested person. It was alleged that the petitioner herein, who was a Sarpanch of the village, has made attempts to occupy the land, as part of his real estate activity. I.A.No.159 of 2011 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for temporary injunction. The Tribunal issued notices to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The peti...

Y.Sham Kumar and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9407 o06. 09.2012 Y.Sham Kumar and others State of A.P. and another Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V.Swamy Counsel for respondent No.1: Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.Maheshwara Rao HEAD NOTE: Cases referred:1. AIR 199.SC 137.2 2007(12) SCC 36.32008AIR SCW 690.4 1988(1)SCC 69.5 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 33.6 (2010) 7 SCC 66.ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penugonda. 2 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, second respondent/de facto complainant and the learned additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/State.3. The brief facts of the case which is sought to be quashed are that the second respondent/wife filed a private complaint against the petitioners under Section498-A, 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ...

Sri Mohammed Abdul Ahmad Vs. Sri Mohammed Abdul Gafoor @ Ahmed,and an

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.237 o06. 09.2012 Sri Mohammed Abdul Ahmad Sri Mohammed Abdul Gafoor @ Ahmed,and another Counsel for petitioner: Sri D. Madhava Rao Counsel for Respondents : HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred 1) AIR 200.AP 25.(FB) 2) AIR 200.SC 18.3)AIR 200.SC 35.ORDER: The observations made by many lawyers and jurists, whether in the course of proceedings, or in the discussions outside, that the amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C., has generated more problems, than what it proposes to solve; are in a way, fortified by this case. The 2nd respondent herein by name, Kadiyala Appa Rao, filed O.S.No.25 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam against the 1st respondent (defendant No.1), and the petitioner (defendant No.2) for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-06-1993, in respect of the suit schedule property. After the pleadings became complete, issues were framed and the trial of the suit commenced. The evidence of ...

H.C.L.Agro Power Limited Vedadri Village Vs. A.P.State Water, Land and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE WRIT PETITION No.8827 OF 200.06-09-2012 H.C.L.AGRO POWER LIMITED VEDADRI VILLAGE, JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.P.STATE WATER, LAND AND TREES AUTHORITY REP. BY EX.OFFICIO MEMBER SECRETARY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INCHARGE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD Counsel for the petitioner: SRI.M.SUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for the respondents: Govt.Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development : ?CITATIONS: JUDGMENT: This Writ Petition has been filed by HCL Agro Power Limited, Vadadari, Krishna District, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the fire wood under transport to the petitioner company in the guise of contravention of A.P. Water, Land Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and to declare Respondent No.4 as not notified or specified to...

T.Babji Vs. the A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by Its Managing Dir

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 16496 OF 200.06-09-2012 T.Babji The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Satyanarayana Murthy, Standing Counsel : ?CITATIONS:1. 2006(4) ALD 69.(DB) JUDGMENT: This writ petition is preferred by a driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the correctness and validity of the proceedings dated 25.7.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent herein declining to interfere with the orders of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Eluru and thus refusing to exercise the power of review of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have been recruited to the service of the APSRTC as a driver in the year 1987. It was his claim that he was recognized as one of the careful and cautious drivers of the corporation. But, however, all due to sheer bad luck, while he was operating one of the buse...

M/S.Tumbi Enterprises. Vs. M/S. Taramandal Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.305 o06. 09.2012 M/s.Tumbi Enterprises. M/s. Taramandal Builders Pvt. Ltd. Counsel for petitioner: Sri J.Ugra Narasimha Counsel for Respondents : Sri P.Veera Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No.6-3-639/640 of Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Originally, he was tenant of Smt.Fareeda, since the year 1979. The respondent herein issued a notice, dated 20.07.1993, to the petitioner, stating that the property in question was purchased by them, on 24.01.1992, and thereby, the tenancy stood attorned. The petitioner states that when he verified from the landlady, she flatly denied the execution of any sale deed and faced with the situation, he filed R.C.No.689 of 1993 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 9(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. On the strength of the orders passed therein, he continued to depos...