Court : Andhra Pradesh
Oral Order: 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri J Venkateswara Reddy and learned counsel for second respondent Sri M Rama Krishna. 2. Petitioner (plaintiff) instituted O.S No. 924 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal praying to grant declaration of title and delivery of possession. At the stage of defendants evidence, defendants sought to mark document dated 17.10.1985 (Ex.B9) and document dated 7.12.1992 (no document number is shown) which is a map disclosing share of the property. Plaintiff raised objection on admissibility of those two documents. It was contended that said documents are not properly stamped and cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as per Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. On the contrary, the defendants contended that document dated 17.10.1985 is only an agreement executed on the same day of registered sale deed indicating respective shares in the property purchased by them and that it need not compuls...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: 1. Since all these writ petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions, by way of this Common order. 2. W.P.Nos.6127 and 6129 of 2016, filed by State and two others, challenge the common judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 146 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015. W.P.No.5778 of 2016, filed by Axis Bank Limited, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 authorities to return the goods covered by Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 146 of 2015. W.P.No.12673 of 2016, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 authorities to release the seized stock of Soyabean as per the directions in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015. The fate of W.P.Nos.5778 and 12673 of 2016 depends obviously on the outcome of W.P.Nos.6127 and 6129 of 2016. 3. Followed by a raid conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Supply Officer, Adilabad, the District Collector, Adilabad initiated p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Sanjay Kumar, J. The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.2358 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, the Tribunal ). By order dated 24.06.2016, the Tribunal admitted the O.A. and while ordering notice to the respondents, directed that the final allocation of the petitioner to the State of Telangana would be subject to the final result in the O.A. Aggrieved by the denial of interim relief, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer at Kurnool in Zone IV on 20.07.1992 and was thereafter transferred to Visakhapatnam in Zone I on her own request, as her husband was working at BHEL, Visakhapatnam. She thereupon took the last rank in terms of seniority in the cadre of Lecturers at Visakhapatnam. She was promoted as a Principal in September, 2012, basing upon her reduced seniority. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the authorities sought her option for allocation to one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. The Revision Petitioner/Sri Chepuri Hanumantha Rao, is sole respondent in M.C.No.262 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, that was maintained by his wife (Smt.Chepuri Uma Bala), the revision 1st respondent, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with a claim to grant maintenance at Rs.25,000/- per month from date of petition. 2. The learned Judge, Family Court, on appreciation of the material covered by petition and counter and also from the evidence of P.W.1 and Rws.1 and 2 with reference to Exhibits R1 to R41, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2015, awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month from date of petition with proportionate costs, with a direction to pay all arrears due after deducting interim maintenance paid by him at Rs.2,000/- per month from date of petition. 3. The contentions in the grounds of revision vis- -vis the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (for short, husband ) are that the impugned order is co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dt.31.12.2010 of the 2nd respondent (the Joint Collector, Medak at Saga Reddy) in Case No.F3/7799/2006-F3/42/ROR/06 confirming the order dt.15.07.2006 in Case No.A3/1734/2006 of the 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak district), canceling the pattedar pass books of petitioners. 2. The petitioners are legal heirs of Dr.E.B. Christian alias Dr. Naidu. 3. It is not in dispute that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of Dr. Naidu on 7th Ahaban 1345 Fasli [7th September, 1935 A.D.] in respect of Acs.34.23 guntas in Survey No.326 and Acs.25.00 guntas in Survey No.310 situated at Khasba Akhali, now known as Zaheerabad. 4. Alleging that under a Will dt.09.03.1960 executed by the said Dr. Naidu, they inherited the property, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act,1971 (for short, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, in I.A.No.526 of 2016 in O.S.No.778 of 2015. O.S.No.778 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein for the following reliefs: (a) To evict the defendants from the Suit Schedule Property i.e., all that part and parcel of the Premises consisting of Ground, First, Second and Third floors bearing Survey No.145/A-Part, admeasuring 1805.78 sq. mts (2160 sq. yards) situated at Bachupally village, Pragatinagar Gram Panchayat and to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the Plaintiff, (b) To direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.20,24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Four thousand only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from 12/06/2015 to till the date of passing judgment and decree and also to pay future interest of 6% pa from the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Election Tribunal (Junior civil Judge), Mulug and the order of the District Collector, Warangal District passed vide proceedings No.111/2016/A, dated 09.12.2016. 2. The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under: 2.1. In the election held on 23.07.2013, petitioner herein got elected as Sarpanch of Ghanpur (Mulug) Gram Panchayat, Warangal District. Respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.3 of 2013 under Section 22 read with sections 19 (3) and 233 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to declare the petitioner as disqualified under Section 19 (3) of the Act, to set aside the election as null and void and to declare her as Sarpanch elected. The petitioner herein filed a counter, denying the allegations and averments in the said election O.P. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by way of an order dated 01.12.2016 declared the election of the petitioner as null and void an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2013 in C.C.No.195 of 2011 passed by the XIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, this revision is filed by the petitioner/complainant. 2. The complainant of a dishonour cheque filed a complaint against two accused/respondents 1 and 2 herein, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act ) and taken cognizance originally before the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, by allotting C.C.No.1560 of 2009 and on transfer, renumbered before the learned XIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, as C.C.No.195 of 2011. It was while pending, the same was returned by detailed order dated 04.07.2013, which is now impugned and the same is after completion of trial and in the course of hearing arguments saying either the Court, which entertained the private complaint by taking cognizance and the Court, which deals with on transfer have no jurisdiction, for the place, where the complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: 1. These three revisions almost since involve same questions of law, though facts are different, thereby taken up for common disposal from different hearings. 2. Heard both sides and perused the respective impugned orders of the District Collector vis- -vis the lower appellate Court and the respective grounds of revisions and the respective contentions raised with provisions and propositions of law in relation thereto. 3. The common questions of law involved in answering the respective revisions are: 1. Whether the confiscation proceedings of the learned Collector confirmed or to some extent modified, as the case may be, by the respective Sessions Judges, while sitting in appeal, are unsustainable and there are no grounds for initiation of proceedings for confiscation and the very seizure itself is not sustainable and there is no violation of any Statutory provisions or Control Orders and the same are in ignorance of the said provisions or settled propositions and, if so,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. This Writ Petition was filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 17.08.2016 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 17.05.2016 declaring the petitioner as a poor performer for a period of three years. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the petitioner is a Company offering consultancy services primarily to the Government and Public Sector Organizations running the Railways. The petitioner Company executed several projects. They also executed projects for clients located outside India. In respect of Indian Railways, they have executed over 150 projects from its inception in 1988. Based on the performance of the petitioner, the petitioner was selected to execute projects for the first respondent. On 30.09.2013 the first respondent floated seven distinct tenders (Request For Proposal) for appointment of consultant from project consultancy services fo...
Tag this Judgment!