Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP226
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question of significant practical importance that arises in this civil revision petition is whether an order determining any question within See. 47 C.P.C, passed after amendment of definition of 'decree', in proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, is appealable or revisable. A Division Bench of this court- noticing difference of opinion in the decisions of Division Benches ,in Challa Ramamurthy v. P. Adinarayana' Sons, : AIR1985AP42 and Gopu Peddi Reddy v. Gopu Thirupathy Reddy, : AIR1981AP362 referred this civil revision petition to the Full Bench, which is now before us. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass and may be stated thus:The revision petitioner is the husband. He suffered a decree dated 18-2-1972 in O.S. No. 191/71 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, filed by his wife (the respondent) for recovery of her maintenance On 22-9-1975 the petitioner filed EA N6.81...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD177; 1998(5)ALT78
1. AS No. 1361 of 1985 is filed by the plaintiff, AS 1677 of 1985 by defendants 1, 2 and 3 and AS 1678 of 1985 by defendants 4 to 9.2. All the appeals arise out of the same judgment in OS No.33 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, and they are, therefore, taken up for disposal by a common order.3. The suit was for partition of the plaint schedule property into fifty shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of 11/50th share to the plaintiff and for mesne profits. The suit was decreed against defendants 1 to 9 and dismissed as against defendant-10, each party to bear its own costs. A preliminary decree was passed for partition of the plaint schedule items 3 to 16 into fifty shares by metes and bounds and allotment of 11/50th share to the plaintiff. The relief for mesne profits was rejected. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 were held to be entitled for the lease amount paid by 10th defendant for the lease of items 1 and 2, the rice mill, according to their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(4)ALD582; 2004(2)ALT792
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Two suits being O.S.No. 8 of 1983 and O.S.No. 300 of 1982 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad have been decided by a common judgment on 24.4.1986. One Iqbal Singh was defendant in O.S.No. 8 of 1983 and plaintiff in O.S.No. 300 of 1982. He has filed these two appeals against the common judgment of the trial Court. During the pendency of these appeals he died and his son-2nd appellant was brought on record as his legal representative. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No. 8 of 1983.2. The subject matter of both the suits related to an extent of 1000 sq. yards (975 sq. yards) of open land in premises bearing No. 5-9-96 (corresponding to old number as B-1-89 or B-1-96) on the public garden road, Nampally, Hyderabad. O.S.No. 8 of 1983 was a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession of 1000 sq. yards in premises bearing No. 5-9-96. They also claimed mesne profits for three years amounting to Rs.36,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(5)ALD816
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner claims to be registered firm which prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the proposed action of the first respondent in paying compensation to the second respondent pursuant to the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to an extent of 1941 Sq.yds. forming part of the premises bearing No. 4-1-830/1, Vasanth Vihar, Abids in T.S. No. 3, Block A, Ward No. 50, as illegal and arbitrary. The prayer is sought to be justified in the facts and circumstances noticed hereunder and on the grounds which are urged at the Bar.2. The second respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') is the owner of the premises bearing No. 4-1-830 by reason of compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 38 of 1964 on the file of the Court of theAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad between the second respondent and his brothers. Even before the premises fell to the share of the second respondent, the property was leased by one SirajuddinBabu Khan, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP121
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of S. 15-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, as inserted by Act 6 of 1977, is questioned on the ground that the said section is ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. As the question involved is common to all the petitions, we may refer to the facts stated by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1892, 1929, 1732, 2025 and 2316 of 1977.2. In W. P. No. 1892 of 1977, the petitioner is Sri Chodeswaraswami Co-operative Credit Society, Sanipalli lanka in Amalapuram taluk, East Godavari district, represented by its President, Bobba Janakiramiah. The respondents are (1) Government of Andhra Paradesh, represented by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department (2) The District Collector, East Godavari District and (3) the Divisional Co-Operative Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari district. The petitioner-society was registered in the year 1946 and the area of operation of the soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT257
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Industrial Development Bank of India in issuing Notices dated 5.2.2007 and 7.4.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act') as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed to it under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The Managing Director of the petitioner-company, who had sworn in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had stated that the respondents, after issuing the notices impugned in the writ petition, lodged a caveat under Section 148-A CPC on 7.8.2007 and they were later served with advance notices of the writ petition. He had further stated that the petitioner-company was registered in the year 1997 with the sole intent of manufacturing a highly specialized material call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966AP51
Ekbote, J. 1. The question which must essentially he answered in this enquiry is whether Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 15 ot 1960 thereinafter called the Act) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The material facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit, O.S. 19/63 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabed, for a declaration that he is the tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) of the Act and therefore is entitled to the protection afforded there under. The respondent who is the landlord instituted O.S. No. 20/0.3 against the petitioner before the same Court for possession of the suit property contending that us the suit building was constructed in 1960 it is exempted from the operation of the Act. The Chief Judge framed the following common issue in both the suits:'Whether Section 32(b) of the Act is unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative in view of the provisions of Article 14 and Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995AP189
ORDER1. There were two suits, one for specific performance of contract by The purchaser and the other for ejectment and arrears of rent by the landlady. The purchser was the tenant and the vendor was the landlady. The suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed, but the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed Accordingly both the appeals are by one and the same person, but in different capacities of purchaser and the tenant. Similarly the respondent in one appeal is also the respondent in the other appeal, but in different capacities of vendor and the landlady. In this state of affairs and for the sake of convenience, the appellant in both the appeals shall hereafter be also described as the 'purchaser-tenant' or as the 'tenant-purchaser'; and the respondent in the two appeals shall be described as the 'vendor-landlady' or as the 'landlady-vendor'.2. The suit property is a double storeyed house. It was and is owned by the respondent in both the appeals. The first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) 1. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission entertained a Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) claim made by the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee on behalf of the four Distributing Companies (DISCOMS) in the State for the financial year 2008-09 and by its proceedings dated 05.06.2010 permitted them to levy FSA charges as indicated therein on all consumers, except LT agricultural consumers, for the four quarters of that financial year. The proceedings dated 05.06.2010 came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions by aggrieved consumers. The learned Judge who heard the writ petitions at great length framed the following questions for consideration: 1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission? 2) Whether the Andhra Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE WRIT APPEAL NOS.858 OF 201.AND BATCH 20 01-2012 M/s.Jairaj Ispat Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, S.K.Goenka and others. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission,Rep. by its Secretary,A.P. Singareni Bhavan,Red Hills, Hyderabad and others. Counsel for appellants: Sri C.Kodandaram, learned senior counsel for Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Sri K.Gopal Choudary, Sri C.R.Sridharan, Sri K.V.Upendra Gupta, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Sri Dhulipalla VAS Ravi Prasad,Sri K.Raghu Babu. Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Sri Raghuram, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the DISCOMS. CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 195.SC 66.2) (2010) 4 SCC 49.3) (2010) 8 SCC 68.4) 2010 (257) ELT 3 (SC) 5) (2009) 5 SCC 79.6) (2005) 6 SCC 34.7) (1984) 3 SCC 12.WRIT APPEAL NOS.858, 924, 925, 946, 948, 949, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 978, 979, 980, 981, 999, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1012, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1029, 1031,...
Tag this Judgment!