Andhra Pradesh Court February 1993 Judgments

M/S. Sri Rama Das Motor Transport Ltd. Vs. S. Kishore Kumar, Partner S ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.D.No. 266 of 1990. The opposite parties were called absent and set ex-parte and the District Forum ordered the complaint. When the appeal came for hearing, it is submitted by both the Counsel that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant. As the order is an ex-parte order, an opportunity may be given to both the parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum to give notice to the complainant and the opposite party and after giving them reasonable time for adducing the evidence, if any, decide the case on merits according to law. As the complaint is of the year 1990, we consider it appropriate to direct the District Forum to dispose of the case within three months from the date of the receipt of the records. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, an interim order was passed in I.A.257 of 1990 directing t...

Dr. M. Krishna Rao Vs. the Chairman, the National House Bank

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in Consumer Dispute Case No. 397/ 91 before the District Forum, West Godavari, Eluru is the appellant herein in this appeal. In the complaint it was stated that the complainant is a Private Medical Practitioner at Eluru. The first opposite party is the Branch Manager, M/s Tapoban Housing Finance Limited. The second opposite party is the president M/s Tapoban Housing Finance Limited. The third opposite party is the Chairman, The National Housing Bank, Bombay. The first opposite party is the Branch Manager of the second opposite party. The second opposite party is a financial Institution registered under the Companies Act which provides loans for constructing and repairing houses. The complainant applied to the first opposite-party for a loan to make alterations to his house and deposited a sum of Rs. 21,600/- on 24.6.91. The Complainant also handed over the title deeds for scrutiny and for granting of loan for making alterations to his...

Additional Controller of Examinations and Others Vs. Kaja Vijayalakshm ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The three opposite parties in C.D.No. 166 of 1991 are the appellants in the Consumer Dispute Appeal. The Complaint was filed stating that the complainant is a private candidate for M.Com., degree examinations, subject to the supervision and control of opposite parties 2 and 3. Even at the time of appearing for first year examination, the complainant gave one elective subject as optional subject for the second year of M.Com. The University returned the application stating that the subject selected by her was subsequently deleted by the university from the elective subjects and therefore, she was asked to select one of the four subjects which were originally in the University. The complainant, therefore, filed an application to direct the opposite parties to allow the complainant to appear of M.Com., previous examination against the original application, which was sent to the University within the prescribed date and also (2) to direct the opposite par...

Appu Ramani and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT370; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)373; 1993CriLJ1974

ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case came up before this Bench on a reference made by our learned brother A. Gopal Rao, J., on the controversy as to whether the date of filing of the complaint/charge-sheet in Court has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation or whether the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. 2. The petitioners-accused were prosecuted for an offence under Rule 3 of the A. P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969 read with Section 29(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and they were convicted under section 29(4)(a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months each, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler, in Calendar Case No. 33 of 1988, by his judgment dated 20-2-1990. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Criminal Appeal No....

Shaik Raj Mohammed Vs. Shaik Ameena Bee and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)579; 1993CriLJ3690

ORDER1. This Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 125, 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the orders of grant of maintenance to the 1st respondents herein. The 1st respondent, admittedly, the wife of the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance in M.C. 84/80 and the order of maintenance was passed under section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27-2-1982. On 25-3-1988, an enforcement petition was filed as the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of maintenance. Mr. Syed Shareef Ahmed, strenuously contends that the orders passed by the Court below are erroneous for the reason that the petitioner has divorced the 1st respondent in accordance with personal law on 10-6-1986 and that a such the order of maintenance, even though passed on 27-2-82 during the subsistence of the marriage, became inexecutable by reason of the subsequent enactment of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Concisely speaking, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends th...

Pavani Sreedhara Rao Vs. the Government of A.P., Revenue (Endowments) ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(3)ALT620

S.V. Maruthi, J.1. As the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are inter-connected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal No. 456 of 1987 arises out of a judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P No. 531 of 1980.3. One Pavani Sridhara Rao filed W.P. No. 531 of 1980 aggrieved by the Memo dated 30-12-78 of the 1st respondent, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30-5-78. The facts leading to the said petition are that a saintly person by name Tummala Venugopala Swamy came to the village of the petitioner and expressed his desire to engage himself in peaceful meditation. Petitioner gave him a site and constructed an Ashram in the land belonging to the petitioner in S. No. 201 of Mogilicherla village with the donation of one B. China Meera Setty. On 6-5-1976 Venugopala Swamy passed away. A samadhi was constructed in the place of Ashram which became a centre for pilgrimage, which is known as Sri Dattatreya Swamy Mandiram. A total are...

G. Padma Reddy and ors. Vs. Government of A.P., Rep. by the Secretary ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT511

ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. The point that has to be decided in this batch of writ petitions is:'When persons holding the posts of Examiner, Copyist, Reader in the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service are promoted to the post of Junior Assistant (L.D.C.) carrying the same time-scale of pay, they are entitled to have their pay fixed in the promotion post at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing their pay in the lower post by one increment as per F.R.22-B.'2. The relevant facts leading to the reference to the Full Bench are as follows:3. Petitioners in these writ petitions were holding the posts of Examiner, Copyist and Reader in the A.P. judicial Ministerial Service governed by 'A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964', (herein after referred to as 'the Service Rules'), and promoted some of them as Junior Assistants (L.D.Cs.) and some as Typists and others as Steno-typists between the years from 1981 to 1989 i.e., after 1-4-1978.4. Posts of Junior Assistants (L...

Murugan Granites, Rep. by Its Proprietor, Sri L. Natarajan Vs. Rathna ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT678

S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties in this appeal finally by treating the same to have been admitted for final hearing.2. Grievance made by the appellant-original fifth respondent before us is not only that the learned Single Judge while setting aside the revisional order dated 20-11-1992 in the revisions preferred by the appellant-fifth respondent before the State authority has directed that personal hearing may be given to the parties and they may be permitted to file written arguments but that the revisions themselves are not competent at mis stage inasmuch as against the original orders dated 11-5-1992 and 17-7-1992 appeals would lie under Rule 35 to the third respondent-Director of Mines and Geology and, therefore, the first respondent herein should have approached appellate authority. When this was put to the learned Counsel for the first respondent herein, he readily agreed that his revisions must be sent to competent appellate authority wi...

K. Babu Rao Vs. Smt. K. Mahalakshmi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT536

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order granting maintenance by the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in M.C. No. 31 of 1989. Admittedly, the order is passed ;x-parte. No proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and project his case. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed be the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in M.C. No. 31/89 is set aside and the said Magistrate shall restore the said case to file and conduct trial afresh after affording further opportunity to either of the parties. But, pending the same, in addition to what has been paid by the petitioner, till this date, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 600/- (Rs.150/- to each of the four respondents i.e., 1 to 4 herein) by way of interim maintenance. This interim maintenance paid shall not be recoverable and so also the amounts which have been paid till this day. I am making it clear that apart from the am...

Carf Andhra Pradesh Vs. the G.M., Telephones, Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memo, of grounds filed therewith the Commission will be pleased to stay order from disconnecting Telephone No. 220441 until the issue of excess Telephone Bill dated 11.11.19912 for Rs. 66,003.00 is settled, pending C.D. No. 24/93 on the file of the State Commission. 2. The petition coming on for orders, upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds filed therewith and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K. Gopalan, Administration case. A.P. for the Complainant. 3. It is ordered that notice do issue to the opposite party herein to show cause why this application should not be complied with and it is further ordered that on condition of the petitioner/complainant depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with the telephone department within a period of (2) weeks from the date of this order. The disconnection of Telephone No. 220441, be a...