Andhra Pradesh Court February 2013 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.
Smt.Palamangalam Vendamma Vs. S.Saleem and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1381 o12. 02.2013 Smt.Palamangalam Vendamma S.Saleem and others Counsel for appellant: Sri C.S.K.V.Ramana Murthy Counsel for Respondents : HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of a bit complicated set of facts, which are stated below in the permissible limits of brevity. O.S.No.47 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, gave rise to this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The sole plaintiff is the appellant. One Sri Kuppam Govinda Reddy had two wives, namely Venkatamma and Sanjeevamma-1st defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit and represented by her daughter-Palamangalam Rajamma, the 8th defendant herein. Govinda Reddy had a son, by name, Elumalai Reddy, through Venkatamma. During the life time of Govinda Reddy, he had some disputes with one of his wives, the 1st defendant, and their daughter. He filed O....
Balam Diguvathattu Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Smt Balam Diguvathattu Saroja ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1157 OF 201.12.02.2013 Balam Diguvathattu Ramachandra Reddy Smt Balam Diguvathattu Sarojamma and others Counsel for the appellant: Sri Ram Mohan Rao Counsel for respondents: -- : : ?Citations: JUDGMENT: The appellant is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.128 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of four items of immovable property. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant and the 1st respondent i.e., plaintiff is the wife of the elder brother of the appellant. The 1st respondent pleaded that while items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property were purchased by her through sale deed, dated 03.04.1974, under Ex.A1, item 4 was purchased through a sale deed, dated 10.06.1974, under Ex.A2. She stated that she has been issued pattedar passbook and title deeds and has been enjoyin...
P.Kupparaju Vs. A.Thyagaraju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1237 OF 201.12.02.2013 P.Kupparaju A.Thyagaraju Counsel for the appellant: Sri N.Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent: -- : : ?Citations: JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.34 of 2003 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 31.07.2002, against the sole respondent herein. It was pleaded that a plot of 313 sq. yards described in the suit schedule was offered for sale by the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.4,66,500/- and on the date of agreement, advance of Rs.50,000/- was paid. According to the appellant, 30.10.2002 was the date fixed for execution of sale deed and for payment of balance sale consideration, but, the respondent did not fulfil his obligation to clear the intrusions on the northern side of the plot. It was also his case that in addition to the advance of Rs.50,000/-, he paid a further sum of Rs.25,000/- on 12.08.2002 and when he w...
Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.685; 691 o12. 02-2013 Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and two others. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Nalin Kumar Counsel for respondents : Sri PSB Suresh Kumar; Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, Spl. Standing Counsel for CBI Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst. Sol. General. HEAD NOTE: ?Citations:1. (2004) 3 SCC 55.2) (1997) 3 SCC 26.3) (1999) 4 SCC 52.4) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 64.5) (2006) 8 SCC 16.6) (1989) 1 SCC 20.7) (2003) 3 SCC 18.8) (2002) 4 SCC 63.9) AIR 196.SC 141.10) 2004(5) ALD 18.(DB) 11) AIR 198.SC 223.12) (1989) 4 SCC 63.13) (2006) 5 SCC 71.14) AIR 196.SC 33.15) AIR 196.SC 121.16) AIR 197.SC 96.17) (1977) 4 SCC 14.18) AIR 196.SC 118.19) (1974) 3 SCC 22.20) (1976)1 SCC 67.21) (1977) 1 SCC 48.22) (1998) 9 SCC 41.23) (1997) 5 SCC 53.24) AIR 197.SC 59.25) AIR 198.SC 73.26) (1991) 1 SCC 21.27) (2011) 1 SCC 53.28) AIR 195.SC 32.29) (2011) 1 SCC 28.30) (1988) 4 SCC 65.31) 76 L E32. AIR 196.SC 5...
K.Kannaiah Vs. S.Sankaraiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SA No.1233 o11. 02-2013 K.Kannaiah S.Sankaraiah Counsel for the Appellant:Sri.G.Jagadeeswar Counsel for Respondent:- Citations: JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.16 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti against the appellant for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note, dated 02.03.2000. It was stated by the respondent that being acquainted with him, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.57,700/- and he did not repay the same in spite of repeated demands. His further case was that when he went to the appellant, residing at Chittoor, for repayment of the amount, he paid a sum of Rs.100/- on 01.03.2003, acknowledging the debt covered by the promissory note. He ultimately prayed for a decree for the suit amount. The appellant filed a written statement. It was pleaded that he borrowed Rs.7,700/- from the respondent through Ex.A1 and that the respondent has clandestinely added the figure '5' before the amount. ...
Kake Rajagopal Reddy Vs. the Govt., of A.P., Reptd., by Its Princ
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30942 o11. 02.2013 Kake Rajagopal Reddy The Govt., of A.P., Reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and three others. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Irrigation and CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP for Land Acquisition : CITATIONS:1. (1994) 6 SCC 45.2. 1997(5) ALT 25.(D.B) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not passing award for the open well and pipeline situated in the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey Nos.408/1, 408/2, 411/1 and 411/4 of Mallinenipatnam Village, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District, acquired for foreshore submersion of Somasila Project, as illegal and arbitrary. Certain lands of the petitioner and his sister-Late Kake Subbamma in the above-mentioned survey numbers were acquired as they came under submersion of Somasil...
Smt.D.Lakshmi W/O.Sri Ch.Tirumala Prasad Vs. Y.V.Sarma S/O.Sri Y.S.Sar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.74 o11. 02-2013 Smt.D.Lakshmi W/o.Sri Ch.Tirumala Prasad, Occu:Bank Employee, Flat No.72, Sri Durga Estates, Medchal Road, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. Y.V.Sarma S/o.Sri Y.S.Sarma, Occu:Employee, Block No.9, Flat No.8, Krupa Complex, Safilguda, Hyderabad & Anr. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI G.UDAYA BHASKAR RAO COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: SRI BODDIPALLI RAMESH COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : ?CITATIONS:1. (2010) 5 SCC 66.2) 2012 (1) Crimes 110 (Jhar.) 3) (1997) 6 SCC 24.= 1997 SCC (Cri.) 932 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 22.12.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the parties to follow the guidelines of the apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sa...
Mrs.Saraswati Subrahmanian Vs. M/S. Narne Estates (P) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful Petitioner- DHr. complainant as against the orders dated 27.06.2012 in EA 59/2011 in CC No. 134/2007 CC 1064/2007 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the E.A. are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the case are hereunder : EP was filed U/s 27 of the C. P. Act by the Petitioner/D.Hr/Complainant against the J.Dr/Respondent/OP to punish for non-compliance of the orders of the District Forum dated 29.12.2010. The petitioner/complainant filed CC 134/2007 against the OP to register Plot no. EE-21 in Block EE in sector IV in East city Township admeasuring 250 sq. yards and also to bear the escalation in stamp duty and registration charges subsequent to October 1998 and to pay compensation of Rs25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- alleging deficiency in service and the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing ...
M.Venkataratnam Reddy. Vs. P.L.Manogaran and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.253 o08. 02.2013 M.Venkataratnam Reddy. P.L.Manogaran and others. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for respondent : --- HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.104 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. The evidence on behalf of the defendants is in progress. The cross- examination of D.W.1 was also completed. When D.W.2 was being cross-examined, a person who was sought to be examined as D.W.3 and filed affidavit in lieu of Chief-examination, remained in the Court. Taking that into account, the trial Court, through docket order, dated 14.12.2012, eschewed the evidence in chief of D.W.3 and held that he shall not be entitle...
G.S.Radhakrishnaiah. Vs. Y.Karam Singh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.72 o08. 02.2013 G.S.Radhakrishnaiah. Y.Karam Singh. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri L.J.Veera Reddy Counsel for respondent : --- HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2011 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pakala, against the petitioner herein, by name G.S. Radhakrishnaiah S/o. Chengaiah, Teacher by profession, for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. The summons in the suit were served upon the petitioner. He filed a written statement, denying the execution of the promissory note or borrowing of money, apart from pleading that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah and that G.S.Radhakrishnaiah is someone else. The trial of the suit commenced. In the course of evidence of petitioner, extensive cross-examination was made mostly touching upon the identity. When the petitioner insisted that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »