Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD435; 2007(4)ALT432
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 5-2-1993 said to be executed by the defendants.2. During pendency of the suit, the defendants filed I.A. No. 554 of 2006 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the documents, covered by Exs.A-6, A-8 and A-9, to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the first defendant on Exs.A-1 to A-5 and other documents and give an opinion. The lower Court while dismissing the said application observed that the earlier application, covered by I.A. No. 454 of 2006, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the signatures on the documents was dismissed by the lower Court. Therefore, the petitioners again filed the present I.A. to send the documents to the handwriting ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD239; 2007(4)ALT436
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 38 of 2002 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioners for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties and for cancellation of sale deed dated 8-3-2002, in relation to 'B' Schedule property He has also prayed for a decree for damages and other reliefs. The plaint was subsequently amended in certain respects. The respondent filed I.A.No. 450 of 2006, under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay in receiving the documents mentioned therein. The first document is, the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert by name, Sri C.S.R. Murthy, and another is, a letter addressed by the expert to the petitioners, returning the documents, after rendering the opinion. The remaining document are, registration extract of G.P.A. and certified copies of vakalat, written statement, counter, etc. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALT310; 2007CriLJ4562
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not registering the case, investigating, and submitting the report to the Magistrate pursuant to complaint, dated 14-01 -2006, as illegal and arbitrary.3. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and resident of Pamulapadu village. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife Rojamma owned an extent of Ac.7.00 of land in Pamulapadu village, near Rudravaram village, and out of the said Ac.7.00 of land they have raised Millet crop in Ac.3.00; Sun flower crop in Ac.1.00 besides Korra crop in some extent of the remaining Ac.3.00; and kept some extent vacant. Whileso, on the day of Sankranthi festival i.e., on 14-01-2006, twenty two college students, including one Sukunath, s/o Maheswara Reddy; and son-in-law of the said Maheswara reddy namely Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007AP230; 2007(6)ALD610
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 27-6-2006 in C.M.A.M.P. No. 646 of 2006 made the following order.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the circumstances, there shall be interim direction to the respondents or their agents or their representatives, not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises in question, provided the lease is subsisting.C.M.A.M.P. No. 1964 of 2006 was filed to vacate the interim direction. The said application was filed by the third respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Bank' for the purpose of convenience). This Court on 8-2-2006 made the said order absolute and directed the Registry to list the matter for final hearing.2. Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Counsel representing the appellant, the petitioner in I.A. No. 817 of 2005 in O.S. No. 9 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge. Nizamabad, would maintain that in the light of the registered lease ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007AP179; 2007(4)ALT101
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the action of the respondents, requiring the petitioners to surrender the 'basic permits' issued to the respective vehicles, for the purpose of cancellation; is challenged. The impugned action is said to be in pursuance of a circular dated 11-12-2006, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh.2. The petitioners are the owners of contract carriages. All of them were issued basic permits in Form P.C. under Section 74 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 174 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). The said permits were issued in pursuance of a policy decision taken by the Government and issued in memo, dated 1-6-1991. These permits enabled the respective owners to obtain special permits under Sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Act. The Transport Commissioner issued a circular dated 11-12-2006, stating inter alia that Sub-section (8) of Section 88 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD667; 2007(3)ALT480
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. Both of them have constituted a firm, by name G. Rajender Reddy and Company. The firm has been undertaking civil contracts. It is stated that the firm filed suits for recovery of sums, to the tune of about Rs. 30 crores, from the Government, and that the same are pending.2. According to the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd respondent retired from the partnership firm on 3-9-2005, and that he has not only addressed a letter, to that effect, but also has authorized him to take necessary steps, to cause the entries made in the registers maintained by the Registrar of Assurances, the 1st respondent herein, modified accordingly. It is stated that consequent upon the retirement of the 2nd respondent, the firm was reconstituted, in the name of G. Vikas Reddy and Company, the 1st petitioner herein.3. The petitioners claim to have submitted an application, in the prescribed form, to the 1st respondent, to cause necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2102
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This matter has come up before this Court on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to consider the question:Whether the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the court taking cognizance of the offence is relevant for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. The question of law involved in this case, though short one, has been the subject of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 27 (SC).3. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by this Court in Crl.P. No. 3572/2003 wherein it was held that the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate is relevant and not the date of filing of the complaint before the court for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Hence made the reference. 4. In order to appreciate the question arising for determination, facts-in-brief may be stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP23; AIR2008Bom23(FB)
H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 is filed by a teacher working in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board at Ahmednagar. The respondent No. 3 to the said writ petition is another teacher working in the said school and claims to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Cantonment Board. That order was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing Appeal No. 20 of 2005 before the School Tribunal at Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, ''MEPS Act'). The School Tribunal allowed that appeal by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2006 and set aside the order promoting the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the said order of the School Tribunal.2. The connected Writ Petition No. 3403 of 2006 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar, to challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]145CompCas674(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This company petition is filed under Sections 433(f) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company failed to pay off its debts owed to the petitioner, in spite of receiving the statutory notice, and in view of the same, the respondent-company is deemed to become insolvent and is unable to pay off its debts.2. It is stated that the respondent-company was incorporated under the provisions of the Act on November 1, 1936. The authorised share capital of the respondent-company is Rs. 70 crores. The registered office of the company is situated at Chandralok Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, and the administrative office of the respondent-company is located at 6-3-903/ B/1, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082. The main objects of the respondent-company were to manufacture and sale of cement. It is stated that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD804
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The original petitioner, who filed this writ petition, is the un-successful applicant before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Subsequent to filing of this writ petition, the original petitioner died and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were brought on record as legal heirs. Later the 2nd petitioner, who is the wife of the original petitioner and who has been added as legal heir, also died on 2.1.2006. Since petitioner Nos. 3 to 5-the legal representatives were already on record and on a memo dated 9.11.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioners, the said petitioners are treated and recorded as her legal representatives.2. In the application purported to be filed under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act before the said Special Court, the applicant sought a declaration as to ownership in respect of the schedule property, consisting of land in Sy. Nos. 656 to 660 totally admeasuring 23.30 guntas situated at Dabirpur, Med...
Tag this Judgment!