Andhra Pradesh Court February 1993 Judgments

M. Hemasundara Koteswara Rao Vs. the District Collector and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP248; 1993(2)ALT259; (1994)ILLJ251AP

ORDER1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition questions the order of the 2nd respondent i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Rt. No. 1263 dated 26-10-1991 confirming the order of the 1st respondent herein i.e., the District Collector, Guntur in his Roc. No. 4071/90-G1 dated 26-2-1991 and the notification appended thereto issued by him removing the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch, Ilavaram Gram Panchayat of Bhattiprolu Mandal in Guntur district with effect from 4-4-1991 under sub-sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner states that he was elected as Sarpanch of the Ilavaram Gram Panchayat for a period of five years in the elections for the said office held in the month of March, 1988. The State Government allotted a sum of Rs. 1,58,200/- to the said Gram Panchayat under Jawahar Rozagar Yojana Scheme (hereinafter referred as'J.R.Y. Scheme') for the year 1989-90 and the said Gram Panchayat pa...

Pallamreddy Masthan Reddy and Others Vs. Nellore Finance Corporation a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP297; 1993(2)ALT97

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Whether a claim petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. and pending on the date of commencement of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 has to be dealt with in accordance with the pre-amended Rules 58 to 63 of Order XXI, or in accordance with the amended Rules 58 and 59, and whether a suit under the repealed Rule 63 lies against the order passed therein, are the questions that broadly fall for consideration in this Second Appeal and the C.R.P. The answer to this question mainly depends on the interpretation of Sectoin 97 (2) and (3) of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force on 1-2-1977. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Jeevan Reddy, J. and Sardar Ali Khan, J. before whom the Second Appeal came up for hearing on a reference by the learned single Judge, felt that in view of the various conflicting decisions on this point, the matter is fit to be decided by a Full Bench. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the Division Benc...

Nimmagadda Venkaiah and ors. Vs. Sri Sangameswara Swamy Temple, Rep. b ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT283

ORDERG.V.L. Narasimha Rao, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 25-11-1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tenali in CM. A.No. 18 of 1992, setting aside the order dated 18-5-1992 of the Principal District Munsif, Tenali in IA.374/92 in O.S.40/1992 granting temporary injunction. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. First defendant is the temple. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. It is useful to state a few facts which have given rise to prefer this revision. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots in the plaint schedule land. The case of the plaintiffs (petitioner herein) is that they are the cultivating tenants and the first defendant (respondent No. 1 herein) is the landlord of the suit schedule lands; they have been cultivat...

Ch. Madhusudhan Reddy and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT244

Motilal B. Naik, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of mandarnus directing respondents 1 to 4 to complete land acquisition proceedings, including passing of award, in respect of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in Gazette No. Wgl/2A/68/91 dated 11-12-1991 acquiring the lands of the petitioners measuring an extent of Ac.11-09 guntas in S.No. 24; Ac.4-00 in S.No. 26 and Ac.9-05 guntas in S.No. 465 situated at Jangaon village, Warangal district.2. It is stated that the petitioners are owners and possessors of lands in question. The A.P. Housing Board, the 4th respondent, conducted survey in the year 1979 for providing houses to general public in Jangaon town. Pursuant to the survey and identification of lands of the petitioners in the said survey numbers, the Vice-Chairman & Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board sent proposals for acquiring the lands of the petitioners. The Government of Andhra Pradesh approved the proposals ...

Superintending Engineer and anr. Vs. Kehar Singh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT293; 1994(2)ARBLR148(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. These three cases arise out of the common judgment dated 17.3.1986 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 181/84 and O.S. No. 452 of 1984, on the file of his court. 2. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2526/86 and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1229 of 1986 which arise out of O.S. No. 452/84 and O.P. No. 181/84, is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent in these cases (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor') is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2775 of 1987 which arise out of O.P. No. 181/84, referred to above. We may briefly refer to the facts which led to the filing of these cases. 3. The work relating to Nagarjunasagar Left Canal II (I.C.B.) earth work excavation and banking of 21st M.B.C. from Km. 44/0 to Km. 49/9 including construction of structures, valued at Rs. 8.75 lakhs, was given to the contractor. The agreement relating to the said work hearing No. 38/SE/K77-78, was entered into between the ...

B. Kishanlal Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1993]90STC257(AP)

J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. Both these revision cases raise for consideration a common question, whether muddagur is liable to be taxed under entry 1, Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, at 0.07 paise as jaggery, or is liable to tax under entry 55, Schedule I of the said Act at 25 per cent as molasses. 2. In T.R.C. No. 3 of 1986 the assessing authority found that the sales of muddagur is liable to be taxed as molasses. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner reversed the said order and held that it is liable to be taxed as jaggery. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, took up the matter suo motu in revision and held that muddagur is liable to be taxed as molasses. This was confirmed by the Tribunal giving rise to the revision case. In T.R.C. No. 2 of 1986 the assessing authority, the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority took the view that the product muddagur, is liable to be taxed as molasses. The appeal before the Tribunal was rejected uph...

Mupalla Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Branch Manager, M/S. New India As ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Case under Section 17(a)(1) of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the State Commissioner will be pleased to direct the respondents herein to settle our insurance claims as per the Joint Policy No. B. No. 283231 dated. 18.5.1986 and direct the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty thousand only) @ Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees twentyeight thousand only) to each of the petitioner by declaring the action of the respondent in non payment of the insured amount is arbitrary illegal. It is also prayed that this Honble Commission may be pleased to award interest and damages as this Honble Commission deems fit and proper for the inordinate delay caused by the respondents herein in settling our claims and allow this CD by awarding costs. 2. This case coming on for hearing upon perusing the affidavit filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Radhakris...

M/S. Network India Limited Vs. Gudipudi Hanumantha Sarma

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. A complaint C.D. No. 17 of 1990 was filed in the District Forum, Guntur claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 against one Indian Communications Net Work Limited, which is the only opposite party. In the complaint, it was stated that the complainant purchased one Electronic Typewriter and consumable goods from the opposite party on 15.5.1989 for Rs. 31,750.00 and after under going training for some time i.e., for a period often days, the Type writer is out of order from21.5.1989 till 27.12.1989, as it is defective. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant through letters, the opposite party failed to rectify the defect until 27.12.1989. Since he borrowed the amount for purchasing the typewriter, as it could not be used, as it was defective, he claimed the above compensation. After the complaint was registered, notice was sent to the opposite party, which was acknowledged. When the case was posted to 20.3.1990 One Sri Abdul Hameed Khan, on...

M/S. General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. K. Krishna Murthy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The Complainant M/s. General Insurance Corporation of India is the opposite party in C.D.C. No. 383/91 before the District Forum, Rajahmundry. The respondent herein is the complainant in the above C.D. 2. Briefly stated the complainant, the respondent herein in this appeal, is a resident of Kondavaram village, in Kothapalle Mandal, East Godavari District. He obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Kondavaram on 11.6.1990. On the same day, premium of Rs. 200/- was paid to the Complainant herein through the Primary Agricultural Credit Society, Kondavaram towards Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme for the Khariff Season 1990-91. The paddy crop raised by the complainant was completely damaged due to floods and Tungro virus. The complainant wrote to the Complainant claiming the insured amount. But the Complainant informed the complainant on 7.6.1991 that "the claims under Comprehensive Crop Insurance Sch...

incharge Officer N.T.P.C. Telegraph Office and Another Vs. Dasari Ragh ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami, President: 1. The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in C.D. No. 252 of 1990. The respondent in this appeal filed the complaint claiming damages of Rs. 99,000.00 and odd. According to the complaint, the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited booked a telegram to be delivered to the complainant, on 9.4.90 stating that the interview for part-time Medical Consultant in N.T.P.C, Jyothi-nagar, Ramagundam would be held on 16.4.1990. It is not in dispute that the said telegram was booked at 6.05 p.m. on 9.4.1990. It was not transmitted from the very post office, from which it was booked till 14-51 hours on 12.4.1990, that is, the telegram is lying there nearly for three days in the post office, in which, it was booked. Thereafter, the message was received by the second respondent on 12.4.1990 at 6.21 p.m. from Hyderabad. But due to the postal holidays on 13th 14th and 15th of April, 1990, the telegram was sent by ordinary post and delivered on 16.4.1990. Thus, it ...