Andhra Pradesh Court February 2016 Judgments
Tallapaneni Sreekanth and Another Vs. NIL (to whomsoever concerned)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are husband and wife, is filed seeking directions to the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry for disposal of HMOP.No.67 of 2015. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. I have perused the material record. 3. The facts as borne out by the material record and as per the submissions of the learned senior counsel, in brief, are as follows: The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. There was no consummation of marriage. On account of differences between them, they had started living separately since 08.12.2008. The 1st petitioner had originally filed against the 2nd petitioner, OP.No.1256 of 2011 under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( ˜the Act', for brevity) on the file of the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for gran...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. IVRCL-KBL (JV) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7 ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) Five joint-venture entities have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-2013, denying them credit for the tax deducted at source by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from their bills. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri B.Narasimha Sarma and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would agree that it would suffice, for the disposal of all these writ petitions, if the contents of the assessment order, in W.P.No.31748 of 2015, are alone noted. The assessment order dated 26.02.2015, passed in respect of M/s.IVRCL-KBL (JV) for the assessment year 2012-13, records that the assessee was a joint-venture executing civil contract works; they had filed their return of income, for the assessment year 2012-13, electronically declaring their total income as Rs. ˜Nil'; they had claimed r...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and Another Vs. The State of Andhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by same petitioners against the same respondents. While in WP.No.36838 of 2014, the summons issued by the first respondent to the second petitioner is questioned, in WP.No.31143 of 2015, the further steps initiated by the first respondent pursuant to the summons served on the second petitioner are questioned. 2. The material averments in the affidavit of the petitioners in nutshell are as follows: WP.No.36838 of 2014: (a) The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. Petitioners state that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet before the Special Court for CBI Cases, City Criminal Court, Nampally against various accused and petitioners 1 and 2 are shown as accused 3 to 12 respectively. The Special Court has already taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused on 13.05.2013. Petitioners deny the charge sheet framed against them...
Tag this Judgment!Palapatla Srinivasa Reddy Vs. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against judgment, dated 07.4.2010, in Sessions Case No.128 of 2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section-302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased had got illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant-accused; that bearing grudge against the deceased, the appellant decided to put an end to the former's life and for this purpose, he made friendship with the deceased and waited for an opportunity; that on 06.4.2007, the appellant approached P.W-1, took money from him and went to Vinukonda, where he purchased three quarter bottles of liquor; that two bottles of liquor was consumed by the deceased and the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Anireddy Amrutha Devi @ Amruthamma Vs. Anireddy VAsudha @ Vasudha Redd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
The order dated 19.11.2015 in I.A.No.880 of 2015 in O.S.No.37 of 2015 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (FAC Judge, VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-1st defendant, filed under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking returning of the plaint, is challenged before this Court. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein, who are defendants 1 to 3 respectively in O.S.No.37 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.880 of 2015 in brief are that the suit is filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents-plaintiffs seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-1st defendant from alienating or conveying or delivering possession or otherwise creating rights in favour of the 3rd parties with respect to the suit schedule prop...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Jaffer Abdul Qadeer Qureshi Vs. Aziz-ur-Rehman Qureshi and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff is directed against the order and decretal order dated 02.04.2014 of the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed in IA.No.1104 of 2013 in IA.No.918 of 2013 in OS.No.1228 of 2013 filed by the defendants 1,3,4 and 5 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( ˜the Code', for short) requesting to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit schedule properties and note down the physical features of the suit Cschedule property and the existence of a road- ˜Cschedule property and file a report. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1,3,4 and 5. I have perused the material record. 3. The said defendants in support of their request for appointment of an advocate commissioner inter alia urged, in the affida...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayan Reddy Vs. P. Narayana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2268 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by name G.Narayana Reddy filed against the defendant, P.Narayana Reddy, (for more convenience hereafter being referred plaintiff-appellant as G and defendant-respondent as P and for more clarity, sister of G was given in marriage to P, both were originally staying at Hyderabad and now both at abroad) for declaration that plaintiff is lawful owner of the plaint schedule property of 401 square yards in S.No.300, house bearing No.2-3-703/2 of Amberpet, Hyderabad; within the boundaries described of South and East-House Nos.2-3-703/3/A and 1 respectively and North and West “road; for order restoring possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for such other reliefs, impugning the dismissal decree and judgment dated 22.03.2005, filed the present appeal. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are that the decree and jud...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Jain Vs. Sangu Gangadhar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
This revision petition is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in I.A.No. 1390 of 2012 in O.S.No. 322 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 23-11-2015 passed by the trial Court appointing an advocate commissioner to fix boundaries of schedule property by exercising power under Order 26 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.'). For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court will be adopted throughout this order. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants and for demarcation of schedule property alleging that he was the absolute owner of agricultural land in S.No. 329 of an extent of Ac. 18.32 guntas situated at Nadepalli Village Sivaru, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. The petitioner succeede...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sudharshan Rao and Another Vs. The Citizen Co-operative Society Lim ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. The two judgment-debtors are the petitioners in this Revision, which was directed against the order passed on 02.11.2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam in E.A.No. 2 of 2014 in E.P.No. 88 of 2012. E.P.No. 88 of 2012 has been instituted for executing the Award passed on 14.05.2011 in Arbitration Case No. 17 of 2010. The Award, it is not disputed before us, has attained finality. Therefore, no objection could have been maintained for the Execution Petition taken out for execution of the said Award. In fact, no such objection was raised either. But however, during the course of inquiry, on behalf of the petitioner in the Execution Petition, the Branch Manager of the petitioner Society at Khammam has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. An objection was raised as to how a Branch Manager can maintain the Petition without the necessary authorization granted in his favour by the Managing Director of the Society...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Infrastructure and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. Order dated 20.01.2016 in O.A.No.4702 of 2015 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) is called in question by the respondents to the said O.A., i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Infrastructure and Investment Department, Hyderabad and the Director of Ports, Kakinada. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in petitioner No.2 department in the year 1992. Petitioner No.1 has framed a scheme of voluntary retirement of State Government employees vide G.O.Ms.No.413, FINANCE and PLG.(FIN.WING-PEN.I) DEPARTMENT, dated 29.11.1977. The scheme facilitates the Government servants who have put in not less than 20 years of qualifying service to take voluntary retirement by giving at least three months notice in writing to the authority which has power to make a substantive appointment to the post from which he proposes to retire. Pleading t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »