Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Lanka Babu Surendra Mohana Benarji Vs. Canara Bank, Unguturu and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2015
1. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy and Ms.Sindoora V.N.L., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sairama Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The 2nd respondent appears to have expired but his presence is not necessary to decide the Revision Petition. THE BRIEF FACTS: 2. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dt.10-08-2-010 in E.P.No.21 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. 3. The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor No.1. 4. The above suit had been filed by 1st respondent Bank against him and the 2nd respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,092-78 ps being the principal and interest due on a mortgage bond dt.18-07-1986 executed by then in its favour for Rs.72,450/- payable with interest @ 16.5% per annum with half yearly rests with penal interest at 2% and costs. 5. Preliminary decree in the said suit was passed on 16-12-1994 by the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid. 6. The preliminary decree declared that the amoun...
G.V. Suryaprakash Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2015
The petitioner is the President of fourth respondent Society. While so, some of the members of the Managing Committee sent a requisition proposing to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (for short, the Act). Pursuant to the said representation, the third respondent issued proceedings on 05.08.2014 proposing to move the meeting of no-confidence on 28.08.2014. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the Government under Section 77 of the Act. The Government, vide its Memo No.6976/Coop.IV/2014, dated 27.08.2014, though granted stay of all further proceedings, later on vacated the same by order dated 21.02.2015. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The Government filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner was elected as the President of the Society and further stating that ten members of the Managing Committee submitted an application in Form AAA under Secti...
H. Suryanarayana and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by i ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
Common Order: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In all these Writ Petitions, the notifications issued for appointment of fair price shop dealers on 01.01.2015, 06.05.2015, Nil.06.2015, 01.06.2015, 06.06.2015 and 07.07.2015 by the Revenue Divisional Officers, Ananthapur and Y.S.R.Kadapa, are challenged as being contrary to G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011, and the decision of this Court in M.Rajitha v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Town and District [2013 (6) ALD 199]. The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The said order was replaced by another Order of 2001. On the basis of the draft guidelines sent by the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, vide his letter dated 07.02.2003, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No...
Polishetty Lurdamma (died) Polishetty Chennaiah and Others Vs. Kunday ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs questioning the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, in I.A.No.990 of 2013 in O.S.No.63 of 2007, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, with a prayer to allow them to amend the plaint, was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. While things stood thus, when the suit was coming up for the evidence of the respondents/defendants, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the impugned I.A seeking to amend the plaint with respect to properties covered in Sy.Nos.110,111,120 and 121 situated at Bahadurpeta Village, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District. Originally the suit was filed in the year 2007 with respect to property in the...
Bh. Syam Prasad Vs. The Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Lim ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceeding bearing Ref.No.Estt/Certificate Vertification/2015-16, dated 20.08.2015, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Kishore, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1-Bank. On 01.08.2015, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner has produced a fake B.Sc., Degree Certificate and calling upon him to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioner sought for extension of time for submitting his explanation. However, as no explanation was submitted and further extension was sought, respondent No.2 through the impugned order appointed one A.Sudhakara Rao, Advocate, Vijayawada as the Domestic Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations and submit his enquiry report. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed this writ...
Ayitam Venkata Anjani Vs. Ganeshula Uma Parvathi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
O.S.No.1193 of 2002 was filed by the first respondent herein before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, against the second respondent for recovery of monies along with costs. The suit was decreed by the said Court and the decree was transmitted under Section 39 CPC for execution. The first respondent/decree holder accordingly filed E.P.No.70 of 2007 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, to bring the EP schedule property to sale. Pertinent to note, by order dated 31.12.2002, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, had ordered attachment before judgment of this property under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. While so, the appellant herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC in E.A.No.545 of 2007 in E.P.No.70 of 2007 in O.S.No.1193 of 2002 to declare her ownership rights over the EP schedule property and to raise the attachment over the said property. According to the appellant/claimant, she was the ab...
Sonapala Balaraju and Others Vs. State of Telangana, rep. By its Princ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
Common Order: (R. Subhash Reddy, J.) 1. As common question of law arise for consideration in this batch of cases on similar set of facts, all the writ petitions are heard together at interlocutory stage, with the consent of counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions seek declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.3, Backward Classes Welfare (OP) Department, dated 14.08.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.16, Backward Classes Welfare (OP) Department, dated 11.03.2015, in the absence of any recommendations by the Commission for Backward Classes, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to issue caste certificates to their wards as per their backward class community. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department, dated 23.09.1970, based on the recommendations made by the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes (Anantharaman Commission), h...
Ganta Nooka Raju Vs. The State of A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. The two accused, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C.No. 321 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, are the appellants herein. Accused No.1 is the son of Accused No. 2. Smt. Ganta Parvathi @ Kumari (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased') was the wife of Accused No.1. The prosecution, it is appropriate to notice, at the outset, has framed two charges against the accused and they read as under: FIRSTLY: That you (A.1) on or about 6th day of March 2008 at about 3.30 A.M., at your house at Patha Kandarada Village, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly caused the instantaneous death of your wife Ganta Parvathi @ Kumari, by hacking her with a knife suspecting her fidelity and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That A....
Krishna Constructions, Vijayawada Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2015
1. With the consent of the learned counsels representing respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of. 2. The petitioner claims to be a special class contractor. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in validating the technical bid of the 4th respondent even though he is not qualified. 3. Shorn of details, the undisputed facts are as under: On 24.02.2014, e-procurement tender notification was issued by the Panchayat Raj Department for the work of MRL1-Road from Nandamur to Lankapalli in Ungutur Mandal-Package No.AP09131406. The last date for submission of tender forms was 06.06.2014. The petitioner, 4th respondent and another person submitted tenders. On 06.06.2014, the technical bids were opened at 4.30 P.M. The technical evolution Committee of Superintending Engineers have scrutinized the technical bids and declared the 4th respondent as ineligible. While so, on 11.07.2014, the Engineer in Chief directed the Superintending Engineer to consider the price...
Pamusani Venkateswarlu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Public ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.159 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Court, Prakasam at Ongole. They were convicted for the offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 120(B) I.P.C and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for both offences respectively. 2. Originally, the prosecution has been laid against five accused. However, the Sessions Court acquitted accused No.4 and accused No.5 by giving benefit of doubt to accused No.4 and for the failure of the prosecution to bring home the charge specifically against accused No.5. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.3 is the wife of one Pola Nagaraju (henceforth referred to as the deceased'). She has been leading a life of loose morals. She has lately developed illegal intimacy with accused No.4, who was visiting the house of the deceased, in the absence of the deceased. Since the deceased was objecting the conduct and behaviou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »