Smt.Y.Padma

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge

Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex · Vikarabad · Telangana

Smt.Y.Padma, XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. 256 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, OS, SC cases.

256

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CRLMP.BAIL/531/2021

PS Chengomul vs Shaik Dawood

31 Dec 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.Y.PADMA,

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

Friday, the 31st day of December, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No.531 OF 2021

IN

Cr.No.200 OF 2021

(P.S. CHENGOMUL)

Between:

Shaik Dawood S/o.Late Shaik Abdul Rehman, Age: 63 years, R/o.9-4-57/7/D/4/1/B, Hakeempet, Tolichowkli, Golconda, Hyderabad.

....Petitioner/Accused

AND

The State of Telangana, through P.S.Chengomul. .…Respondent/Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Syed Noor Mohd., Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Sri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by accused under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to him in the above crime for the offences U/s.420, 506 of I.P.C.

2.It is the case of the accused that on 11.09.2021 the defacto- complainant namely Shaik Ibrahim lodged a complaint before SHO,

Chengomul stating that he owned JCB bearing No. TS 34 8064 and he has been running in and around Manneguda with the help of Irfan. After completion of work daily he used to keep the same in the G.Patel Service

Station at Manneguda during night hours. While so on 10.09.2021 at about 6-00 am. driver of the defacto-complainant Irfan went to the said place and found missing of the said JCB. On the information received from the said driver defacto-complainant searched for the same but not traced and prayed to take action against unknown offender who committed theft of the same.

3.Basing on the said complaint police registered a case for the above offence. During course of investigation police traced the said JCB through

GPS connection which is connected to the mobile number of the defacto- complainant and police reached Shamshabad. On verification of the said place police also found JCB of the defacto-complainant along with some other vehicles and further they noticed changing of registration number by pasting a sticker as TS 30 C 4720. And they also noticed four persons running away from the said place by seeing the police. On further enquiry police came to know that he is owner of the said place in which many vehicles parked with fake registration numbers. And police implicated in the said case.

4.Petitioner/accused further contended that he is no way connected with the said allegations. At the instance of defacto-complainant police registered false case against him and trying to arrest him. In fact he is only owner of the said land and he is no way connected with the vehicles found in the said place. Since police are trying to arrest him and use third degree methods and prayed to grant bail to him under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

5.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed counter stating that arrest of the accused is necessary to ascertain the details of the vehicles found in the place of the accused and he is the prime accused and to ascertain the involvement of other persons in the said offence. Investigation is still pending. Therefore accused is not entitled for the relief and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now point for determination is:

Whether accused is entitled to grant bail under sec.438 Cr.P.C as prayed for ?

8.Point: As seen from the record it is alleged against accused that number of vehicles are found in the place belongs to accused and registered numbers are changed by fabrication.

9.As seen from the record police found number of vehicles with fabricated registered numbers in the land which originally belongs to accused. Police has to ascertain the details of the said vehicle and how the said vehicles were found in the land of the accused. From the facts and circumstances it appears that without arrest of the accused police are unable to complete the investigation and unable to ascertain the details of the 3 vehicles and how said vehicles were found in possession of the accused.

Since the offence is revolving around the property without arrest of accused and involvement of the other accused investigation cannot be completed and to complete the investigation it appears that arrest of the accused is warranted.

10.It is the contention of the counsel for petitioner that accused is facing allegations for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 379 or 411

I.P.C. and both the offences are punishable with imprisonment less than seven years and police have not complied mandatory procedure contemplated under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

11.As seen from the record it is alleged against the accused that police found number of vehicles with fabricated registered numbers. From the said allegations it appears that accused apart from facing allegations for the commission of the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of I.P.C. and also facing allegations under chapter 18 of I.P.C. which are punishable more than seven years. Therefore viewed from any angle it is not a fit case to grant bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31 st day of December, 2021.

XII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

CRLMP.BAIL/536/2021

PS Pargi vs Basetti Babji (A3)

03 Jan 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.Y.PADMA,

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

Monday, the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.536 OF 2021

IN

Cr.No.358 OF 2021

(P.S. PARIGI)

Between:

A3 Basetti Babji S/o.Shivanarayana, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Peddanarapally village of Yeleswaram Mandalam, East Godavari District.

....Petitioner/Accused No.3

AND

The State of Telangana., through P.S.Parigi. .…Respondent/Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Keshireddy Venkat Ramulu, Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Sri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by accused No.3 under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to him in the above crime for the offences U/s.420, 273, 328 R/w 34

I.P.C. and Sec. 59 of Food Safty and Standard Act.

2.It is the case of the accused No.3 that on 26.11.2021 the defacto- complainant who is A.S.I. of Pargi P.S. along with his staff on receiving credible information about the possession of adulterated tea powder visited house of Kalavathi and searched the same and found 50 Kgs of adulterated tea powder in the possession of A1. Immediately police seized the same and registered the above case.

3.It is further alleged that on the same day police arrested A1 and recorded his confession in the presence of mediators. In the said confession

A1 confessed that he and A2 are getting the said adulterated tea powder and from A2 he brought the same and using in the business. Basing on the said confession of A1 he is included in the present case and trying to arrest him.

4.It is further contended that he is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has not committed any offence. Police falsely implicated him in the above case. Police not seized any property from him and implicated him in the case basing on the confession made by A1 and A2 which is a weak piece of evidence and prayed to grant bail.

5.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed Counter opposing the petition and further contended that investigation is not yet completed and still he is absconding. Without arrest of A3 investigation cannot be completed and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now point for determination is:

Whether accused No.3 is entitled to grant bail under sec.438 Cr.P.C as prayed for ?

8.Point: As seen from the record it is alleged against A3 that he along with A1 and A2 are selling the adulterated tea powder and he is supplying the same to A1 and A2. It is the contention of the counsel for A3 that no property was seized from the A3 and he is implicated basing on the confession of A1 and A2 which is a weak piece of evidence.

9.As seen from the record it is admitted fact that no property was seized from A3 and so far he is added as accused to the present basing on the confession of co-accused.

10.It is alleged against accused that he is dealing with the adulterated tea powder. Unless arrest of A3 is made police are unable to get the source and ascertain involvement of any other accused. Therefore in the case on hand without arrest of A3 investigation cannot be completed. Therefore it is not a fit case to grant bail.

Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3 rd day of January, 2022.

XII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

CRLMP.BAIL/535/2021

PS Pargi vs Pedhamsetti Srinu (A1)

03 Jan 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.Y.PADMA,

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

Monday, the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.535 OF 2021

IN

Cr.No.358 OF 2021

(P.S. PARIGI)

Between:

A1 Pedhamsetti Srinu S/o.Accharao, Aged 30 years, Occ: Idly Vendor, R/o.Indranagar, Pargi Town and Mandal, N/o.1-46, Kummara Veedhi, Kirlampudi Mandalam, Geddanapalli, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

A2 Beesetti Verababu S/o.Acchubabu, Aged 24 years, Occ: Idly Vendor, C/o.Magam Ashok Kumar house at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, N/o.Peddnapally village of Yeleswaram Mandalam, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

....Petitioners/accused No.1 & 2

AND

The State of Telangana., through P.S.Parigi. .…Respondent/Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Keshireddy Venkat Ramulu, Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused No.1&2 and Sri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by accused No.1 and 2 under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to them in the above crime for the offences under Sec. 420, 273, 328 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 59 of Food Safty and Standard Act.

2.It is the case of the accused No.1 and 2 that on 26.11.2021 the defacto-complainant who is A.S.I. of Pargi P.S. along with his staff on receiving credible information about the possession of adulterated tea powder visited house of Kalavathi and searched the same and found 50 Kgs of adulterated tea powder in the possession of A1. Immediately police seized the same and registered the above case.

3.It is further alleged that on the same day police arrested A1 and recorded his confession in the presence of mediators. In the said confession

A1 confessed that A2 and A3 are getting the said adulterated tea powder and from A2 he brought the same and using in the business. Basing on the said confession A2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and since then they are in jail.

4.It is the contention of A1 and A2 that they are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have not committed any offence. Police falsely implicated them in the above case. They are small and petty vendors and entire their family is depending on them and prayed and prayed to enlarge them on bail.

5.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed Counter opposing the petition and further contended that investigation is not yet completed. If accused are enlarged on bail they may not cooperate with the further investigation.

And FSL reports still await and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now point for determination is:

Whether accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to grant bail under sec.439

Cr.P.C as prayed for ?

8.Point: As seen from the record it is alleged against A1 and A2 that they are selling the adulterated tea powder and they are found in possession of said adulterated powder. Police arrested them on 26.11.2021 and since then they are in jail.

9.As seen from the record so far police arrested A1, A2 and A4. A3 is still absconding. So far police only seized adulterated powder and yet to get

FSL report and ascertain the source of the said powder which shows non- completion of the investigation. Therefore it is not proper to enlarge A1 and

A2 on bail at this stage.

Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3 rd day of January, 2022.

XII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

MVOP/7/2019

Md.Jahangir vs Raju Rai

31 Dec 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Smt.Y.Padma, XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED: ON THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021.

M.V.O.P. No.7 OF 2019

Between:

1. Md.Jahangir, S/o.Sharfuddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Agri – Hotel,

2. Smt.Aleema Begum, W/o.Md.Jahangir, Aged about 40years, Occ:Household, Both R/o.Rapole Village, Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District.

…Petitioners

A N D

1. Sri.Raju Rai, S/o.Lal Rai, Aged about Major, Occ:Driver, R/o.Lal Banglow Po Tinsukia, Assam-786125.

2. Mohd.Mathloob Ahmed, S/o.Not known, Aged about Major, Occ:Owner, R/o.H.No.12-2-36/23, Zeba Bagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, Begumbazar, Hyderabad-500012.

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. North East Plaza, 4th Floor, Beside BMW Showroom, Opp;RTA Office, Erramanzil X Roads, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

CLAIM: PETITION FOR COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE MV ACT, 1988 AND RULES 475 OF APMV RULE 1989 R/W SEC.140(C) OF MV. ACT 1988.

********

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of

Sri.C.Kapil Dev, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri.P.Sampurna Anand, Advocate for

Respondent No.3 and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 31-12-2021

I.A.No.958/2021 is filed and allowed. Main case is advanced to this date from

16.02.2022.

Petitioners No.1 and 2 and counsel for Petitioner and R3 present and filed a

joint memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalath.

This court perused the record and there is a point for settlement, hence matter is referred to Lok Adalath and Petitioners and respondents are directed to appear before the Lok Adalath on 31.12.2021. Petition against R1 and

R2 is dismissed as not pressed.

XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Vikarabad,R.R.District.

LOK ADALATH DATED: 31-12-2021

Petitioners No.1 and 2 and their counsel are present and Petitioners are

identified by their counsel and also verified through Adhaar produced by the

Petitioners. Counsel for Respondent No.3 present.

The terms of compromise filed and same are read over and explained to

Petitioners in open Court in Telugu and they admitted as true and correct and

consented for the same. Hence Award is passed for Rs.9,00,000/- in favour of the

Petitioners towards full and final settlement.

Respondent No.3 shall deposit the said amount within a month from the date

on which Award is made ready.

Petitioner No.1 is awarded Rs.3,00,000 and Petitioner No.2 is awarded

Rs.6,00,000.

On deposit of the said amount Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw

the entire their share amount.

On failure of the Respondent No.3 to deposit the said amount within a stipulated period Petitioners are entitled for interest @ 12% per annum thereof.

pronounced by me in open court on this the 31 st Day of December, 2021.

Chairman, M.L.S.A cum-XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Vikarabad,R.R.District.

SC/10/2019

PS Yalal vs Mailaram Santosh

30 Dec 2021

Order Record 255 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLMP.BAIL/535/2021	PS Pargi vs Pedhamsetti Srinu (A1)	03 Jan 2022	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/536/2021	PS Pargi vs Basetti Babji (A3)	03 Jan 2022	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/539/2021	P.S.Marpally vs Pakeer Iqbal Miya	03 Jan 2022	Order	—
MVOP/7/2019	Md.Jahangir vs Raju Rai	31 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/531/2021	PS Chengomul vs Shaik Dawood	31 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/10/2019	PS Yalal vs Mailaram Santosh	30 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/517/2021	PS Shankerpally vs Mohammed Harshad Khan @ Rashid	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/527/2021	PS Nawabpet vs Mohammed @ Dudekula Jangeer (A2)	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/528/2021	PS Nawabpet vs Chinnamalku Shivaleela @ Chinni	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/532/2021	PS Chevella vs Andhela Sangamani @ Sangamma	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/49/2015	Boya Kamalakar vs Mohammed Maqsood	29 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/509/2021	PS Chevella vs Syed Majeedulla (A2)	29 Dec 2021	Order	—
G.W.O.P/8/2019	Maheboob Bee vs All Concerned	29 Dec 2021	Other	—
CMA/4/2021	Pandala Suresh vs Mirchigalla Prabhakar	28 Dec 2021	Order	—
CMA/17/2015	Sandul Ravinder Goud vs Sandul Damodar Goud	28 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/39/2015	Tirumal traders Pesticides and Seeds vs Raviteja Seedsand Pesticides	27 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/518/2021	PS Nawabpet vs Gollagudem Kistaiah (A1)	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/519/2021	PS Kotpally vs Malla Raju @ Mandula Raju	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/105/2014	PS Kulakcherla vs Sowrla Venkataiah	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/111/2014	P.S Pargi vs Pinjari Khasim	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/129/2015	PS Mominpet vs Malkolla Ravi @ Ravinder	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/248/2014	PS Marpally vs Thormamidi Laxmaiah	24 Dec 2021	Order	—
LGOP/21/2018	P.Ramchandra Reddy vs P.Sanjeeva Rao	23 Dec 2021	Other	—
SC/262/2015	The State of Telangana through PS Chevella vs K.Balraj	23 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/85/2014	SK basha vs Vsbhumireedy ramgopal Reddy	22 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/522/2021	PS Marpally vs Garella Srikanth Goud	22 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/530/2021	PS Pargi vs Smt.Bagari Anuradha (A1)	22 Dec 2021	Order	—
G.W.O.P/12/2016	Chithuri Manemma vs Chithuri Balvanth Reddy @ Banuvas Reddy	22 Dec 2021	Other	—
G.W.O.P/271/2021	Dr.M.Santosh Kumar vs Smt.Bharani Shyamala	22 Dec 2021	Other	—
AS/31/2014	Lashkar Malla Reddy vs Sampath Ram Reddy	21 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/4/2016	Bajaj Alianz General Insurance vs T.Narsimhulu	21 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/7/2016	India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd vs D.Srinu	21 Dec 2021	Other	—
SC/22/2021	PS Tandur vs Bandi Rajesh	20 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/516/2021	PS Chengomul vs Patlolla Srinivas Reddy	20 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/508/2021	P.S.Parigi vs Makthala Mahender	20 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/80/2016	navari anasuya vs Chappidi Neelema	17 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/511/2021	PS Peddemul vs Parmati Hanmanth Reddy	17 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/505/2021	P.S.Marpally vs Kursheed Bee	16 Dec 2021	Order	—
LGOP/1/2020	Buchammagari Subhan Reddy vs Jatteni Yellaiah	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
LGOP/2/2020	Reddygari Ravinder Reddy vs R.Shankershan Reddy	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
LGOP/3/2019	Mohd. Ali Siddiqui vs B.Kumar	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/510/2021	PS Pargi vs Pedhamsetti Srinu (A1)	15 Dec 2021	Order	—
FDP/320/2013	Smt.Pallapu Satyamma vs Vadde Shankaraiah	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/504/2021	PS Pargi vs Busi Ananthaiah	14 Dec 2021	Order	—
CMA/9/2016	Malgari Narsimha Reddy vs Yedla Venkat Reddy	13 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/16/2020	M/s Siddhi Vinayaka Estates vs Kolanu Gopal Reddy	13 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/502/2021	PS Peddemul vs Chavan Hari Naik	13 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/503/2021	PS Tandur vs D.S.Yadagiri (A6)	13 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/8/2017	M.Anjaiah vs Y.laksmaiah	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
MVOP/20/2017	Kammari Shanker vs Ravula Suresh	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/138/2019	Mohd Abdul Rahman vs Smt.Ghausia Bee	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/242/2012	Iqbal Begum vs Mohd.Basheer Ahmed	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CMA/14/2015	B.Narsimha Reddy vs Boddu Ravi	09 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC/270/2014	PS Nawabpet vs Kadamanchi Yellaiah @ Yellanna	09 Dec 2021	Other	—
G.W.O.P/272/2021	Mahekunisa vs All Concerned	09 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/492/2021	PS.Karankote vs Kurva Devamma	09 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/474/2021	PS Shankerpally vs Gadusu Ashok (A1)	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/485/2021	Anam prasad vs I.simranjit singh	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/491/2021	PS Shankerpally vs Jawed Chawan (A2)	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/496/2021	PS Kulkacherla vs P.Pulender @ Pulender Goud	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/501/2021	PS Shankerpally vs Mohammed Harshad Khan @ Rashid	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
G.W.O.P/2/2020	Master Konda Balincheru Madusudhan Reddy vs Syed Mohammed Salman	08 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/494/2021	P.S. Parigi vs Bagari Anuradha	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
CMA/3/2016	Sakri Bai vs T.Ananthappa	07 Dec 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/487/2021	ps shankarpally vs Vsnani mahesh kumar	07 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/489/2021	ps marpally vs Garella Srikanth	07 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/497/2021	PS Chengomul vs Madasu Ravi Kumar @ Ravi	07 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/79/2018	Smt .Yelgani Saroja vs Smt. Yelagani Indiramma	06 Dec 2021	Other	—
SC/18/2020	PS Shankarpally vs Isram @ Rajesh Khanna	06 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/19/2020	PS Chevella vs Isram @ Rajesh Khanna	06 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/113/2013	PS Peddemul vs C.Venkat Reddy	06 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/484/2021	ps tandur vs Vslokya naik	06 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/493/2021	PS Kotepally vs Mohammad Nizamuddin	06 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/507/2021	PS Chevella vs Mohammed Waliulla Sameer	06 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/481/2021	ps tandur vs Vssajeed	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/483/2021	ps parigi vs S.manjula	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/490/2021	ps kulkacherla vs Vislavath Ravi	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/486/2021	ps karankote vs Vsj venkatappa	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/466/2021	PS Tandur vs Miryanam Naveen @ Bondala Chinna (A1)	02 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/488/2021	ps tandur vs B.sridhar	02 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/32/2016	K.Rukkamma vs The Managing Director	01 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/22/2013	Pandari Rao vs Chincheti Chandra Reddy	30 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
OS/62/2013	Kantilal Shivlal vs P.balavardhan Reddy	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
OS/69/2015	emmandi Narasimha Reddy vs Emmadi Dayakar Reddy	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
OS/79/2021	G.Narasimhulu Goud vs Khaja Moinuddin Khan	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
OS/116/2012	M.Ravinder vs M.Venkanna	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
OS/131/2018	Smt. B.Swapna vs Smt.Chilam Pochamma	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
SC/125/2013	PS Mominpet vs P.Nagesh	30 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/482/2021	ps shabad vs Vsp.shoba rani	30 Nov 2021	Other	—
MVOP/74/2015	D.Bhavik Reddy vs APSRTC	26 Nov 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/469/2021	PS Doma vs Y.Jyothi	26 Nov 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/475/2021	P.S. Doma vs D.Khadeer	26 Nov 2021	Order	—
MVOP/10/2020	Salbathapur Sangappa vs N.Arun Kumar	24 Nov 2021	Other	—
OS/10/2019	Smt.Chidruppa Varamma vs Smt.Antharam Jangamma	24 Nov 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/467/2021	PS Dharur vs Manne Haimad	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/642/2016	IndusInd Bank Ltd vs Jamaluddin Mohammed	24 Nov 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/458/2021	PS Shabad vs Samam Narsimlu @ Narsimha (A2)	23 Nov 2021	Order	—
OS/8/2020	Smt.Cherukupalli Balamani vs Sale Balakrishanaiah	22 Nov 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/461/2021	PS Nawabpet vs Patel Janardhan (A1)	22 Nov 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/468/2021	PS Yalal vs Md Khaleel (A6)	22 Nov 2021	Order	—

Showing 100 of 255 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jan 2022		3
Dec 2021		78
Nov 2021		63
Oct 2021		43
Sep 2021		59
Aug 2021		10

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.Y.Padma handled?

Smt.Y.Padma has handled 256 court orders since 2021 at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 58 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.Y.Padma hear?

Based on available records, Smt.Y.Padma primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.Y.Padma currently posted?

Smt.Y.Padma is posted as XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.Y.Padma available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.Y.Padma are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.Y.Padma dispose cases?

Smt.Y.Padma disposes approximately 58 cases per month, based on 256 orders handled over their tenure at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.Y.Padma serving?

Smt.Y.Padma has been serving at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

CRLMP 61%

OS 12%

SC 8%

MVOP 6%

G 5%

LGOP 3%

EP 3%

CMA 3%

Posting History

Aug 2021 — Jan 2022

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge · 218 orders
Aug 2021 — Jan 2022

III Special Sessions judge cum XIX ADJ · 38 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M.Naga Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge,Vikarabad

1 orders

Sri P.Pradeep Naik

I Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Ses...

0 orders

Rallabandi Santhi Latha

Principal Junior Civil Judge

351 orders

Ms. S.Vaishnavi

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

181 orders

Sri. M. Venkateswarlu

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad

403 orders

← View all judges at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex

Smt.Y.Padma

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

IN

Cr.No.200 OF 2021

(P.S. CHENGOMUL)

AND

O R D E R

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

IN

Cr.No.358 OF 2021

(P.S. PARIGI)

AND

O R D E R

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

IN

Cr.No.358 OF 2021

(P.S. PARIGI)

AND

O R D E R

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

M.V.O.P. No.7 OF 2019

A N D

****

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 31-12-2021

I.A.No.958/2021 is filed and allowed. Main case is advanced to this date from

16.02.2022.

Petitioners No.1 and 2 and counsel for Petitioner and R3 present and filed a

joint memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalath.

LOK ADALATH DATED: 31-12-2021

Petitioners No.1 and 2 and their counsel are present and Petitioners are

identified by their counsel and also verified through Adhaar produced by the

Petitioners. Counsel for Respondent No.3 present.

The terms of compromise filed and same are read over and explained to

Petitioners in open Court in Telugu and they admitted as true and correct and

Petitioners towards full and final settlement.

Respondent No.3 shall deposit the said amount within a month from the date

on which Award is made ready.

Petitioner No.1 is awarded Rs.3,00,000 and Petitioner No.2 is awarded

Rs.6,00,000.

On deposit of the said amount Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw

the entire their share amount.

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

S.C. No. 10 OF 2019

A N D

...ACCUSED

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 30-12-2021

********