Andhra Pradesh Court November 2015 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.
K. Rawindra Reddy Vs. The State of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2015
Common Order:- 1. These two revisions arise out of the orders of the learned XIX-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 19-08-2013, made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1441 and 1442 of 2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2012. 2. Crl.M.P.No.1441 of 2013 was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall the complainant/PW.1 whereas Crl.M.P.No.1442 of 2013 was filed under Section 91(1)(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the documents which were marked in another C.C.No.814 of 2012 and to mark the same in the present Calendar Case viz., C.C.No.815 of 2012. Both the petitions were dismissed. 3. The petitioner is the complainant and respondents No.2 and 3 are shown as A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.815 of 2012. The very same complainant filed another Calendar Case bearing C.C.No.814 of 2012 against the same accused. Both the Calendar Cases are on the file of the learned XIX-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. These two cases are filed alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable...
Aruna Sagar and Others Vs. M/s. Shrushti Infrastructure Corporation an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2015
Common Order: 1. Since common point arises for consideration in all these Revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in these Revisions are third parties to O.S.Nos.58 of 2007 and 154 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 3. Both these suits had been filed for specific performance and permanent injunction. 4. O.S.No.58 of 2007 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in C.R.P.Nos.1156 of 2014 and 1159 of 2014 against 5th respondent therein originally. Thereafter respondent Nos.6 to 14 were impleaded as defendant Nos.2 to 9. 5. O.S.No.154 of 2007 was filed by 1st respondent in C.R.P.Nos.1158 of 2014 and 1161 of 2014 against 2nd respondent therein and respondent Nos.3 to 11 have been impleaded therein subsequently. 6. The subject matter of both these suits is land in Sy.Nos.833, 834, 836, 837 and 838 of Patancheru village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. In O.S.No.154 of 2007 only Ac.3.00 is the subject matter while in O.S....
M/s. Deepti Enterprises Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2015
The order in Case No.CSA/48/2009 dated 12.11.2009 passed by the District Collector, Medak District- the 2nd respondent herein in exercise of the powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners are dealers in pulses having licence under the Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short the Control Order 2008'). It is stated that the petitioners have purchased 50 quintals each of Red Gram Dal from M/s. Parakh Agro Industries Limited, Pune Maharashtra State and the same was being transported in a Lorry bearing No.MH-23-1958 to Maharaj Gunj at Hyderabad along with the invoices dated 27.08.2009 raised by the vendor on the petitioners. On 28.08.2009 the Assistant Supply Officer, and the Deputy Tahsildar, Sangareddy have conducted a check on the lorry and seized the stock as well as the lorry on the ground that the documents required under the A.P. Sales Tax Act and the Way Bill are...
A. Sai Siva Jyothi and Others Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
Common Order: 1. The petitioners are A-1, A-2 and A-7 in Criminal Petition Nos.9135 of 2015 and A-3 to A-6 in Criminal Petition No.8905 of 2015 in Crime No.826 of 2015 of P.S.Banjara Hills registered for the offence punishable under Sections 415, 418, 420 and 120-B (sic.120-A) read with 34 I.P.C on the report of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant dated 23.07.2015. It is mentioned the date and time of offence was 23.07.2012 and the names of the accused mentioned were A-1 entity M/s.Gemini Film Circuit represented by its Partner A.Manohar Prasad, A-2 A.Manohar Prasad, A-3 Mrs.A.Sai Jyothi, A-4, Mrs.A.Lakshmi Anandi, A-5 Mr.A.Anand Prasad, A-6 Mr.Kovelamudi Bapaiah, A-7 M/s.Gemini Industries and Imaging Limited represented by its Joint Managing Director Mr.A.Manohar Prasad. A-7 is no other than A-2 individually and representing A-1 firm and its partner. The petitioners sought for quashing F.I.R supra. 2. The report of the defacto-complainant speaks in nutshell that A-1 entity obtained...
Annam Venkatesham Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2015
The grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities have not registered a FIR on his complaint dated 25.06.2015. The scope and import of the statutory obligation of the police to register a FIR upon receiving a complaint is no longer res integra. In LALITA KUMARI V/s. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH (2014) 2 SCC 1), the Supreme Court, speaking through a Constitution Bench, summarized the law in connection with the registration of crimes as under: 1. The registration of a FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where the preliminar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›