Andhra Pradesh Court February 1993 Judgments

Shaik Omer Vs. the General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District and Ano ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint, C.D. No. 193 of 1993 is filed before the District Forum, questioning that the amount of Rs. 16,000/- and odd, for which, a bill was issued on 29.12.1992 as excessive and arbitrary and to direct the reconnection of the telephone. It appears from the allegations in the complaint that the matter was already referred to the arbitrator and the arbitrator gave a decision saying that the bill will come to Rs. 4,000/- and odd. When the complainant pressed for an order in the I. A. No. 27 of 1993, that is, to direct the connection of the telephone pending the consumer dispute, the District Forum passed a conditional order on 9.2.1993 directing the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and also directing the respondent not to disconnect telephone. Having regard to the bill amount of Rs. 16,000/- and odd and the finding of the arbitrator that more than Rs. 4,000/- is the average bill for month, we consider that the orders passed in the inte...

K. Kamala Devi Vs. Kammala Kumara Sekhar and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(1993)DMC468

Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This is a rather unusual and peculiar case arising under Section 125 Cr. P.C. where the first respondent eventhough denied his paternity to the petitioner herein, contended that he did not father her, has instituted the proceedings in M.C. No. 43 of 1991 on the file of the Court of II Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Eluru, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.2. Miss G. Rohini, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the maintenance case filed by the first respondent is clear abuse of process of law, inasmuch as the first respondent even while pleading that he did not father the petitioner, has instituted the proceedings only as a counter-blast to the plea taken by the petitioner's mother earlier that the first respondent had married to her as his second wife and be got the petitioner.3. On the other hand; Mr. J, Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the first respondent, very vehemently contended that as the petitioner's mont...

K. Kamaladevi Vs. Kammala Kumara Sekhar and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(1994)DMC183

Subhashan Reddy, J.This is a rather unusual and peculiar case arising under Section 125 Cr.P.C. where the first respondent eventhough denied his paternity to the petitioner herein, contended that he did not father her, has instituted the proceedings in M.C. No. 43 of 1991 on the file of the Court of II Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Eluru, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.1. Miss G. Rohini, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the maintenance case filed by the first respondent is clear abuse of process of law, in as much as the first respondent even while pleading that he did not father the petitioner, has instituted the proceedings only as a counter-blast to the plea taken by the petitioner's mother earlier that the first respondent had married to her as his second wife and begot the petitioner.2. On the other hand, Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the first respondent, very vehemently contended that as the petitioner's mother ...

Kosuri Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Kota Sarojini and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT146

ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant in RCC No. 19/87 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tenali questioning the order made in LA. No. 1682/91 filed by him under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of proceedings in the said RCC pending disposal of O.S. No. 124/83 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali filed by him for specific performance of a contract for sale dated 8-8-1985.2. The respondents filed RCC No. 19/87 under Sections 10(2) (i) (vi), 3(1)(b) and 3 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that Kota Kasiviswanadham, Husband of the first respondent, purchased the premises in question from Alapati Mallikharjuna Rao, A. Janakamma, A. Ramachandra Rao and P. Lakshmirajyam and though they wanted the premises for their personal occupation the petitioner did not vacate the same and hence, they wer...

Smt. K. Anjamma and Others Vs. Chanchal Danaiah and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP44; 1993(1)ALT741

ORDER1. This matter has come up before me because an objection was raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the C.R.P. filed by the petitioners on the ground that there is no specific order in O.S. No. 6 of 1991 (corresponding to O.S. No. 553/89) on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga reddy District. When no specific order is passed by the lower court, the C.R.P., is not maintainable. The learned counsel represented the matter with the following endorsement:'Our contention in the lower court is that the suit itself is not maintainable and the Addl. District Judge, ignoring the contents as once the suit is decreed in terms of compromise, admitted the suit. Against which this C.R.P. is filed and the same is maintainable as no other remedy is left.'When the matter came up before my learned brother Justice Motilal B. Naik on 8-2-1993, he directed that it may be posted before the regular court hearing C.R.Ps. Accordingly the matter has come up before me.2. Prior to...

Vemana Somalamma and Others Vs. Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Ramp ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP312; 1993(1)ALT409

ORDERP.L.N. Sarma1. When these matters came up before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sardar Ali Khan and M. N. Rao, J,(. a Judgment in W.P. No. 13673 of 1984 dt. 6-3-1990 was brought to the notice of the learned Judges, wherein in similar cir-cumstances, the learned Judges directed the authorities to restore the land to the non-tribal transferor on the basis of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Regulation I of 1959 as amended (herein after referred to as 'Regulation 1 of 1959'). In fact, B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ. took a similar view in W.P. No. 9692 of 1986 dated 28-11-1989. Sardar Ali Khan and M. N. Rao, JJ. were of the opinion that the matters are eminently suitable to be decided by a Full Bench and accordingly directed the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for obtaining suitable orders in the matter. After obtaining suitable orders, the matters are referred to us and that is how these matters have come up before us.2. The...

Doddi Nagulu Vs. Doddi Mathyalamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(1993)DMC389

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order granting maintenance by the Court of Sessions, reversing the order of rejection of maintenance by the Court of Magistrate Respondents 1 and 2 have lodged a maintenance case claiming maintenance against the petitioner herein stating that the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and that the 1st respondent begot the 2nd respondent through him That was disputed by the petitioner and the Court of Magistrate found favour with the said plea taken by the petitioner and held that the 1st respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent was not born out of their wedlock. This was reversed by the Court of Sessions holding that, even though there was a customary marriage inder se the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the same may not be valid and in that sense held that the 2nd respondent is an illegitimate child of the petitioner and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mon...

Doddi Nagulu Vs. Doddi Muthyalamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(1994)DMC42

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order granting maintenance by the Court of Sessions, reversing the order of rejection of maintenance by the Court of Magistrate. Respondents 1 and 2 have lodged a maintenance case claiming maintenance against the petitioner herein stating that the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and that the 1st respondent begot the 2nd respondent through him. That was disputed by the petitioner and the Court of Magistrate found favour with the said plea taken by the petitioner and held that the 1st respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent was not born out of their wedlock. This was reversed by the Court of Sessions holding that, even though there was a customary marriage inter se the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the same may not be valid and in that sense held that the 2nd respondent is an illegitimate child of the petitioner and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- pe...

T. Veera Swamy Vs. T. Ram Chander and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)490; I(1993)DMC613

Subhashan Reddy, J.These petitions are filed against the orders of granting maintenance filed by the Courts below. The respondents 1 and 2 are no other than the parents of the petitioner. The first respondent (father) is aged 72 years and the second respondent (mother) is aged 66 year. Though they are staying with one of their sons, they claim that they are unable to maintain themselves and that the petitioner even though has got definite capability to maintain them has refused and neglected to maintain them. The Courts below fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month to each of the respondents I and 2 totalling to Rs. 400/- per month. While the Court of Magistrate ordered maintenance from the date of order, the Court of Sessions ganted maintenance from the date of petition.1. Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuosly contends that the petitioner is not the only son to the respondents 1 and 2 and that there are two other sons to them. The other so...

B. Chaya Devi and ors. Vs. B. Prabhakar Reddy and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)550; I(1994)DMC23

Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the reversing order of the Court of Sessions reducing the maintenance granted in favour of petitioners 1, 2 and 3 herein from Rs. 250/-, 150/-, 150/-per month to Rs. 150/-, Rs. 100/-, Rs. 100/~ per month respectively.2. The reasons given for reducing the maintenance amount is that first respondent herein has got a brother to be educated, as such he is incurring expenditure. This reasoning is extraneous as the brother is not one of the dependants as contemplated under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. When a person is being maintained not as of a right, but by way of mercy or otherwise, he cannot be called as a legal dependant, which Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code comprehends such being the legal position, the fact of first respondent herein maintaining his brother is not relevant for reducing the quantum of maintenance, granted in the instant case. As such, I set aside the reversing order passed by the Cou...