Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
M/S Sri Venkateswara Gas Agency,rep., by Vs. the Government of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14334 Of 2013 Dated 07-06-2013 M/s Sr.Venkateswara Gas Agency,Rep., by its Proprietor S.Krishna Moorthy, Sirvel Village and Mandal, Kurnool District..Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Consumer AffaiRs.Food and Civil Supplies Dept.,Secretariat Buildings,Hyd., and another ..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.K.Ananda Rao Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Transport HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: The Court made the following: ORDER: The proceedings in Rc.CS2/88/2013, dated 21.03.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner's L.P.G.distribution licence by invoking the power under clause 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short, 'the Control Order').is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Mr.K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that an order of suspension under Clause ...
Laxmai Vs. the Nizamabad Co-operative Sugar Factory
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.777 of 1999 and batch dated:07.06.2013 Laxmaiah....Appellant Vs. The Nizamabad Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Nizamabad at Jankampet Rep.by its Managing Director.... Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vedula Srinivas : : ?.Cases referred: COMMON JUDGMENT: These two second appeals raise common and similar questions to be determined by this Court. The defendant in the respective suits is the appellant in the respective second appeals herein. Two suits are filed by the plaintiff-respondent namely the Nizamabad Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Nizamabad against the respective defendants separately for eviction from the respective plaint schedule sites and for vacant possession of the same together with past and future profits on the ground that the schedule sites in S.No.482/5 belong to the plaintiff and that the respective defendants encroached respective portions ...
Smt.Amina an Vs. Mohd. Ishaq
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1855 of 2011 Dated 07-06-2013 Smt.Amina Anjum...petitioner. Mohd. Ishaque ...Respondent Counsel for appellant: Sr.M.A.K.Mukheed Counsel for Respondent : HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred ORDER: The respondent is th7e tenant of premises owned by the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.3787 of 2002 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for eviction and vacant possession of the premises. The suit was decreed on 31.12.2004 by the trial Court. Challenging the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent filed A.S.No.102 of 2005 in the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court).City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2007. The decree passed by the lower Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.313 of 2007 on 20.07.2007. However, the respondent was granted six months time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking to the ...
Prabhunathvasire Vs. the Union of India and Oth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO P.I.L.Nos.227 of 2012 dated:07-06-2013 Prabhunath Vasireddy...PETITIONER The Union of India and other ...RESPONDENTS COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:Sr.Prabhunath Vasireddy (party in person) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:Advocate General and Sr.P.Venu Gopal HEAD NOTE: ?. Cases referred 1. AIR1982SC1492. (1993) 4 SCC4413. (2009) 8 SCC2734. (1992) 2 SCC428P.I.L.M.P.Nos.332 & 333 of 2012 THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY P.I.L.M.P.Nos.332 & 333 of 2012 and P.I.L.Nos.227 & 228 of 2012 Common Order:(per LNR,J.Through separate judgments, both of us have arrived at the same conclusions viz., that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. We accordingly hold that the writ petitions be dismissed. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. Dt:07.06.2013 Common Order: The petitioner is an Advocate, practicing in the High Court of A.P.He filed these writ ...
M/S.Sri Uma Maheswara Rao and Par Boiled R Vs. District Supply Officer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14282 Of 2013 Dated 07-06-2013 M/s.Sr.Uma Maheswara Rao & Par Boiled Rice Mill, Rythunagaram,Nandyal, Kurnool District, A.P., rep. by its Proprietor Sr.K. Chinna Annaiah.Petitioner District Supply Officer,Collectorate, Kurnoor .Respondent Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Narendra Chetty Counsel for Respondent: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: 1 1984 (2) (HC) APLJ2ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings in Rc.No.CS5/157/2013, dated 25.04.2013, of the respondent whereby he has suspended the licence of the petitioner's rice mill, pending enquiry. At the hearing, Sr.G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Clause 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short, 'the Control Order') and submitted that issuance of prior notice is a condition precedent for suspension or cancellation of a l...
Yousuf Andcompany, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. the Government Ofandhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P. No.12615 OF 201.06-06-2013 Yousuf and Company, rep. by its Partner Sri Mohd. Mehamood, Hyderabad....APPELLANT The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,Secretariat, Hydbad.,and another....RESPONDENTS Senior Counsel for Petitioner:Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing for Sri K.Chidambaram, Counsel. Counsel for Respondents:G.P. for Industries and Commerce and Additional Advocate General. HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1 (1994) 3 SCC 56.Par2. AIR 198.SC 136.Para 22 an3. (1999) 5 SCC 59.4 (2012) 2 SCC 48.5 (2012) 4 SCC 46.6 AIR 196.SC 93.(1) 7 AIR 197.SC 180.8 (2010) 6 SCC 49.9 AIR 195.SC 32.at Para.7 10 AIR 199.SC 70.at Para.7 11(1998) 8 SCC 28.at Para.28 12 (2006) 2 SCC 74.13 (1976) 1 SCC 90.14 AIR 198.SC 23.15 (2004) 4 SCC 31.16 (2012) 4 SCC 65.17 (1848) 12 Q.B18. 1997) 8 SCC 52.19 (2011) 12 SCC 41.20 AIR 195.SC 73.21 AIR 195.SC 94.ORDER : This writ petition is filed to call for records pertaining to order dt.26.03.201...
Smt. Muddasani Hemalatha Vs. Prudvi Engineering Developers Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant intended to buy an apartment No.201 in semi finished condition in Nava Nidhi Apartments at H.No.16-2-147/A, 16-2-147/A/2 and 16-2-147/A/3 situated at Akbarbagh, Dayanandnagar, Malakpet Hyderabad for a total cost of Rs.28,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that opposite parties informed that they were holding all necessary permits/licenses/clearances from the Government authorities and GHMC for construction and sale of the said apartment. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties also informed that the said apartment is given under mortgage to GHMC as security against any deviations on their part which is a mere formality and ensured release of the same once the entire payment is made by the complainant. The complainant further submitted that she is suffering from knee pain and the opposite parties promised to provide a standard LIFT to the ...
Vengalapudi Man Vs. 1.Paluri Kannabbai and 3 Oth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI C.R.P.No.3959 OF2012Datedd:06-06-2013 Vengalapudi Manga .Petitioner 1.Paluri Kannabbai and 3 others...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sr..M.S.R.Subramanyam Counsel for respondents :SriK.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu .Head Note: ?.Cases cited: 1 2012 (5) ALD2572 AIR2003SC1905(1) 3 2010 (2) ALT6484 2013 (1) ALT461ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.179 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The said suit is filed against the respondents herein/defendants seeking a decree for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. During his evidence, the plaintiff sought to mark the original sale deed dated 11.04.1973 under which he claims to have purchased the suit property. The defendants raised an objection as to the admissibility of the said sale deed on the groun...
K.Kotaoah and Others Vs. Koganti Siva Pras
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.916 OF1997Dated:06-06-2013 K.Kotaoah and others .....Appellants Koganti Siva Prasad ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Counsel for the Respondents: : ?.Cases Refferred:1. Subs. By Act 3 of 1951, sec.3 and Sch., for ".Part A States and Part C States".. 2 Subs. By Act 3 of 1951, sec.3 and Sch., for ".such States".. 3 Subs. By Act 24 of 1934, sec.2 and Sch. I, for Section 55. 4 AIR1989SC17695 AIR1990MADRAS1986 AIR1994AP1577 AIR1990ALLAHABAD278 AIR (32) 1945 Madras 209 9 2000(6) SCC6592000(5) ALT39SC JUDGMENT: Defendants in O.S.No.7 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, are the appellants herein.2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,64,789.14 ps.3. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the 1st defendant is a firm situated with its Head Office at Pedanandipadu doing business in contract works. Defendants 2 to 7 are its partners and the 2nd defe...
Gadagottu Pandurangarao Thirupathaia Vs. P.Bal Reddy and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO C.M.A.NO.1309 OF2004dated:06-06-2013 Gadagottu Pandurangarao Thirupathaiah ....Appellant P.Bal Reddy and another .... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant :Sri K M Mahender Reddy Counsel for the respondent No.1 : -- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri E. Venugopal Reddy : : ?.Cases referred:1. AIR1976SC2222. 1999 (6) ALT6(SC) 3. II (2012) ACC6934. 2012 (7) SCALE865. (1997) 8 SCC16. (2010) 10 SCC3477. (2007) 2 SCC3498. (2009) 6 SCC280JUDGMENT: The applicant in W.C. No.227 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Nizamabad is the appellant herein.2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:3. The appellant while working as a labourer with the first respondent, while travelling on 10.11.2001 in a Tractor with Trailer bearing Nos. AP25F2954and AP25F2953 owned by the first respondent, met with an accident. In the said accident, the appellant sustained fracture injury to both bones of left leg, abrasion to left knee, abr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »