Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT551
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This regular appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the decree and judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District made in O.S. No. 259 of 1997 dated 25-07-2001, whereby the lower court while declaring the title of the plaintiff to the goods, restricted the suit claim and decreed for the amounts of sale proceeds only.2. During the course of our judgment, we refer the parties as arrayed in the lower court for the sake of convenience.3. The plaintiff, who is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in tobacco seed oil, neem oil, sent 79.020 metric tonnes of tobacco seed oil to the 3rd defendant-Company, which is having refinery machinery, for refining the oil between 17-07-1996 and 10-09-1996 and after processing an extent of 31.740 metric tonnes of refined oil was received, but the remaining tobacco oil i.e. 49.280 metric tonnes was with the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant was provided with financial assistance to establish th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT780
ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 in O.S. No. 149 of 2002, dated 16.09.2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the plaintiff in the main suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the defendant in the main suit. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are as follows. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S. No. 149 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as 'lower Court'), against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,63,400/- basing on a pronote, said to have been executed by the respondent on 31.12.1999. The petitioner's case is that the respondent borrowed Rs. 95,000/- from him and executed a pronote on 31.12.1999, marked as Ex.A1, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT71
ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. In this batch of cases the question posed for consideration is regarding the validity of AP Act 9 of 2008, which amended the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short 'HMC Act'), Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 901 dated 31.12.2007 issued thereunder.2. By the aforesaid amendment Act the HMC Act was amended by inserting Sections 452-A, 455-A and 455-AA apart from substituting Schedule U and V of the HMC Act. Similarly, with respect to the other allied Acts, in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Section 218-A was inserted and in the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 under Section 2h(h) high rise buildings was defined and Sections 41 and 43 were amended by inserting sub-sections. Further, Section 46 was substitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT67
V.V.S. Rao, J.Introduction1. This appeal by plaintiffs is against Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 285 of 1983, dated 31.03.1989 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The journey of the suit started in 1959. Moving from original Court to appellate Court and then from original Court to another, the case so far spent about fifty years in judicial system. There is no hope that this journey would stop with this Judgment. Nevertheless, learned Counsel for both sides argued with admirable effort leaving no point untouched. Plaintiffs' suit is for declaration and for consequent correction of revenue entries, which was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs' branch and defendants' branch are entitled to property. Case and counter case is stated infra by referring to parties as they are arrayed in the suit.From 1959 to 19892. Plaintiff Lalitha Pershad filed suit being O.S. No. 51/1/1959 on 17.09.1959 on the file of the Court of the Munsif Magistrate (W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT453
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 22 of 78 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was instituted praying for the relief of eviction after demolishing the construction made on a portion of the plaint schedule property and also for the relief of injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or any of them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs relating to the area marked in red in the sketch and for mesne profits and also for the other appropriate reliefs.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 7, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 and Ex.X.1 and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT1
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.W.A. No. 1894 of 2002:1. This appeal is preferred by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10278 of 2000. By the order impugned herein the learned single Judge has decided two writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 10278 of 2000 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and W.P. No. 18905 of 2000 filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, which have been dismissed. The said respondents 2 and 3 have not preferred any appeal and as such the issue involved in the present appeal is only with regard to W.P. No. 10278 of 2000.2. The brief facts in this appeal are as follows:(a) In the year 1961, the Government assigned an extent of Ac.3.25 guntas in Sy. No. 87/4 of Nagole village to one Somaiah. The said original assignee sold the said land to the first respondent herein (petitioner in W.P. No. 10278 of 2000) un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT431:AIR2009NOC2482(A.P)(F.B).
V.V.S. Rao, J.Introduction*1. Whether 'ghee' is a 'product of livestock', under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (the Act, for brevity) and whether Government Notification vide G.O.Ms. No. 286, Agriculture 8B Cooperation (Mktg-1) Department, dated 05.07.1994 notifying among others, 'ghee' as one of the products of livestock for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale in all notified market areas is not valid? These are the two questions before this Full Bench. The consideration of these two questions involves interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. This case, or at least, one question involved in this case, was once decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Gurram Polisetti v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 200 (4) ALD 253 (DB). The Division Bench judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4484 of 2000 (Guntur District Produ. M.A. Co-op Un. Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee). The apex Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010CriLJ655
B. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This Revision Case has been filed by A-1 to A-3 against the Judgment, dated 22- 03-2004 in Crl.A. No. 24 of 2001 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate in C.C. No. 108 of 2000, dated 25-01-2001.2. Originally the case was filed against A-1 to A-6. A-1 and A-3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A-2 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. A-2 was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)ALT209
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The sequence of relevant facts:The petitioner lodged a private complaint against the respondents 6 to 8 and others before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The complaint was forwarded to the Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad, on 21.10.2001. The complaint was registered as Cr. No. 263 of 2001 Under Sections 420, 463, 465 r/w 34 IPC and investigation taken up. The Gopalapuram P.S forwarded the final report and laid a chargesheet. The investigation revealed that the six accused (including A.1 to A.3, the respondents 6 to 8 herein) committed offences punishable Under Sections 139, 468, 471, 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. On the filing of the chargesheet the case was numbered as CC No. 773/03 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The case is pending trial on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, as CC No. 387/06 (after transfer ordered by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, in Crl.Tr.M.P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)ALT240
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.The petitioners twelve in number are the Senior Civil Judges, working in Andhra Pradesh Judiciary, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Andhra Pradesh in not filling up the vacancies of District and Sessions Judges under Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 simultaneously from among the direct recruitment, accelerated recruitment by transfer and recruitment by transfer among the Senior Civil Judges is irrational and arbitrary and direct them to fill up 39 posts of District and Sessions Judges by accelerated recruitment by transfer/recruitment by transfer from among the Civil Judges (Senior Division), simultaneously along with 13 posts of the District and Sessions Judges (Entry Level) by direct recruitment.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are initially appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) and subsequently promoted as Civil Judges (Senior Division). Senior...
Tag this Judgment!