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.
Vegendla Vijayalakshmi and Two Others Vs. Gaddipati Naga Himabindu and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Second appeal No.1212 o05. 06-2013 Vegendla Vijayalakshmi and two others......Appellants Gaddipati Naga Himabindu and seven others.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellants:Sri N.SreeRamaMurthy Counsel for Respondents: Smt.K.Lalitha : : ?Cases referred:1. 2004(2) ALD 78.2. AIR 197.SC 229.3. 2004(2) ALD 3.(SC) 4. (2008) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 59 JUDGMENT: Three of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are the appellants herein. Subject matter of the suit is an extent of Ac.2.42 cents of dry land in Nidubrolu village of Guntur District. Originally the suit land belonged to one Pamulapati Sundaramma, who died on 22.02.1991. The first defendant is daughter of the defendants 2 and 3. The third defendant is daughter of the 4th defendant. Late Sundaramma is wife of brother of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. Sundaramma died possessed of the suit property. The plaintiff contends that Sundaramma bequeathed the suit property to th...
K.J.J.Paul Prabhu Vs. S.Priscilla Priya Kumariand Othe
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 of 2013 Dated:05-06-2013 K.J.J.PAUL PRABHUDAS ..PETITIONER S.PRISCILLA PRIYA KUMARI& OTHERS..RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Smt I.Maamu Vani Counsel for Respondent: GIST HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED: ORDER: The office has taken an objection as to the maintainability of this revision on the ground that it is barred by limitation and also on the ground that incorrect provision was quoted. This revision is filed questioning the order of the Family Court, Kurnool in F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2011 dated 31.07.2012. This revision was laid under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').and not under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation for revisions when revisions are filed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no provision under the Limitation Act for revisions filed under Section 1...
Voosa Satyanarayana and Six OThe Vs. Sunkara Veerapandu and Five Other
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2013
HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Second appeal No.853 of 1999 dated:05-06-2013 Voosa Satyanarayana and six others....Appellants Sunkara Veerapandu and five others...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sr.M.V.Suresh Counsel for Respondents: Sr.T.S.Anand : : ?.Cases referred: 1.1984(2) APLJ226S.A.No.853 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The only substantial question of law that arises for determination in this second appeal is: ".Whether a debtor who does not hold any lands and who lives by selling milk derived from she buffalo reared by him, is a 'small farmer' within the definition of Section 3(t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (AP Act 7 of 1977) or Act 45 of 1987.". The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for recovery of money based on Ex.A1 promissory note dated 05.10.1986 executed by the fiRs.defendant for Rs.10,000/- which is said to have been borrowed thereunder from the plaintiff. After issuing Ex.A2 demand notice, w...
1.T.Suvarna and OThe Vs. State of A.P., Rep., by Public Prosecuto
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.NO.9128 of 2011 dated:05-6-2014 1.T.Suvarna and others. ..Petitioners State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., through Inspector of Police, P.S. Nallakunta, Hyd., and another...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Mohinuddin Counsel for the first respondent : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the second respondent: Mr. M. Praveen Kumar ?.citations:1. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC335ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No.1233/2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.2. A private complaint which was filed against the petitioners was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., came to be registered as Cr.No.251/2008 of Nallakunta Police Station against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 415 IPC. The Police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet which was tak...
Smt.Sheelarani,proprietrix , M/S Rane S Vs. Mamidisuresh, Proprietor, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT C.M.No.895 OF2012dated:04-06-2013 SMT.SHEELA RANI,PROPRIETRIX , M/S RANE SNUFF INDUSTRIES, NELLORE..PETITIONER. MAMIDI SURESH, PROPRIETOR, M/S SRIDEVI SNUFF INDUSTRIES, NELLORE..RESPONDENTS. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERs.MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: MR.KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI GIST HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED: 1 AIR1960SC1421 (2001) 5 SCC731 (2007) 6 SCC11 2010(1) ALT754HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT C.M.A.No.895_OF2012JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sr.Justice LNR,J ) Defendants in O.S.No.222 of 2011, on the file of the V-Additional District Judge, Nellore, are the appellants. The respondent filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein from manufacturing or marketing the product 'snuff' with the name and description 'Sr.Devika' brand. The respondent pleaded that he has been manufacturing the snuff with the trademark 'Sridevi', both with name ...
M/S.Sri Surya Granit Vs. Sri G.Venkateswarl
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT C.C.C.A.Nos.211 of 2008 Dated 04-06-2013 M/s.Sri Surya Granites....Appellant Sri G.Venkateswarlu.....Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Smt. Manjari S.Ganu Counsel for respondent: Sri D.V.Sita Rama Murthy HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred:1. (1990) 4 SCC1472. 1989(2) ALT6533. 1998(6) ALT399THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT C.C.C.A.Nos.211, 227 & 228 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J) These three appeals arise out of a common judgment, dated 18.06.2008 rendered by the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in three separate suits being O.S.Nos.314 of 2004, 461 of 2006 and 64 of 2007. While the appellant figured as plaintiff in O.S.Nos.314 of 2004 and 64 of 2007, it is the sole defendant in O.S.No.461 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.64 of 2007. The 1st defendant, by name G.Venkatesw...
Reemana Kaus Vs. Shobhit Kaus
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT F.C.A.No.149 of 2013 and batch dated:03-08-2013 Reemana Kaushik...APPELLANT Shobhit Kaushik...RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:-Sr.Deepak Bhattacharjee COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:-Sri.T.S.ANAND : ?.CITATIONS: AIR1971SC2352F.C.A.149 and 251 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J.F.C.A.No.149 of 2013 is filed against the order, dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.1871 of 2011 in F.C.O.P.No.532 of 2011. The consequential order passed by the trial Court rejecting the F.C.O.P.is challenged in F.C.A.(sr).No.8146 of 2013. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She filed the F.C.O.P.under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') against the respondent for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 16.04.2006 in a non-ceremonial ...
P.Laxmi Devi and Oth Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh,represented
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11156 OF2012and batch Dated:03-06-2013 P.Laxmi Devi and others.Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue).Secretariat, Hyd.,and others ..Respondents Counsel for PetitioneRs.Mr.B.Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 & 2:Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 : Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr.K.V.Subba Reddy Counsel for respondent No.7 : Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: WRIT PETITION No.11156 OF2012AND CONTEMPT CASE No.765 Of 2012 Common Order: The writ petition was originally filed for a mandamus to set aside notification No.G2/25049/2011, dated 30.01.2012, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') by respondent No.2 in respect of 3957 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.49...
Excise Superindent, Mahaboobna Vs. Kundena Bhagyamma and Anoth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON'BLE JUSTICE STI N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.3029 OF1998DAated:14-02-2013 Excise Superindent, Mahaboobnagar...Appellant Kundena Bhagyamma and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondents: : ?.Cases Referred:1. 1998(1) ALT383(D.B.) 2 2002(3) ALT24(D.B.) 3 (2006) 11 SCC692JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah): The appeal is filed against the order in W.C.No.356 of 1996(F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad (Twin Cities).2. The 1st respondent herein made a claim for compensation alleging that her husband was a toddy tapper employed by the 2nd respondent and he received injuries due to snake bite on 04.07.1996 and he died. He was said to be aged 40 years and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. She claimed a compensation of Rs.1,38,728/-. It was also pleaded that as the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent by collecting licence fee, the 1st respondent is also liable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›