Andhra Pradesh Court March 1993 Judgments

D.V. Satyanarayana Vs. the General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in C.D. No. 161/92 on the file of the District Forum, Hyderabad is the appellant in this appeal. The complainant is a subscriber of telephone No. 864405. He received two bills dated 11.9.88 and 11.3.1989 for Rs. 13,605/- and Rs. 26,257/- respectively. According to the complainant his average bills never exceeded the range of Rs. 500/- to 1400/- and that, therefore these bills were wrong. The complainant approached the opposite party claiming relief and the opposite party granted rebate in respect of first bill and did not grant rebate in respect of second bill. Then the complainant approached the High Court of A.P. by way of writ petition. 2. The High Court referred the complaint to Arbitrator. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Arbitrator went into the correctness or otherwise of the bills and gave further rebate of the first bill and also some rebate with regard to the second bill. Being not satisfied with that the com...

A.B. Ramulu (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. B. Yadigir Reddy (Died) Rep., by Gener ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT425

ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. This revision gives rise to an important question of law, namely, whether the power of attorney survives after the death of the principal so as to enable the attorney holder to continue the suit proceedings.2. O.S.No. 895 of 1985 was filed for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership against the present revision petitioners. Pending that suit, the plaintiff died on 7th October, 1985. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed an application, I.A. (SR) 13 of 1986, for bringing the legal representatives on record along with a condone delay petition in filing that L.R. application. However, the delay condone application was dismissed by the trial Court on 23rd February, 1987 and even the revision petition preferred against that order to this Court resulted in dismissal. In spite of all this, the trial Court was calling the suit by adjourning it from time to time. The revision petitioners' application to dismiss the suit, as abated, was dismissed by the tri...

Cheethirala Pullaiah Sons and Another Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Cheethirala Pullaiah Sons and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited, the opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 441/91 on the file of the District Forum, Cuddapah are the appellants herein. The complainants 1 and 3 are the respondents. 2. The case of the complainants is that on the advise of the Agricultural Officer, Lingala, they wanted to grow sun flower seeds and the Agricultural Officer, Lingala issued permits to purchase sunflower seeds from the respondents and the complainants purchased the same from them, and sowed it. We are not concerned in this appeal with the second complainant. According to the complainants they purchased the seed in their own name and in the name of his brothers, as the department is giving two bags to each ryot. But when the complainants sowed the seed in the month of September, 1991, when it rained, the seeds sowed did not germinate. They reported the matter to the respondents. Although they promised to come to the villa...

Konapalle Narasimhlu Naidu Vs. the Managing Director, the Chittoor Co- ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant, is the appellant in this appeal. The case of the complainant is that he holds ten shares in the respondent-Co-operative Sugar Factory. There was default in supply of the cane and hence certain penalty was imposed on the complainant by the society. The Society wanted to deduct the amount of penalty out of the price of the cane supplied by the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that he submitted an explanation and without considering the same, the Society has imposed penalty and is seeking to adjust the said amount from out of the price of the sugar cane supplied by him. But the penalty amount, has been imposed under Bye-law 33A of the Society, which empowers the Society to impose a penalty for non-supplying the cane of eight tonnes per each share. Bye-law 34 of the Act empowers that if any member fails to supply sugarcane without valid reason, shall in addition to any other appropriate action taken against him, be fined ...

The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nallavaram Pulla ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The respondent herein is the complainant in C.D. No. 185/91. The said complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under a medi-claim policy against the Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. During the pendency of the consumer dispute, it appears from the order passed by the District Forum dt. 3.4.92 that the complainant filed a petition to examine the witnesses. Since the District Forum felt that the examining of witnesses itself excludes the jurisdiction of the forum, it dismissed the petition. But by mistake, this order was treated as an order in the consumer dispute and the consumer dispute itself was dismissed. On noticing this, the complainant filed an application I.A No. 13/ 92 to set aside the dismissal order passed in C.D. No. 185/91 on 3.4.92 and to restore the same to file and to dispose of the same on merits. The said application was opposed by the respondent therein, that is, the appellant herein, on the ground that sinc...

South Central Railway Vs. M. Vishnu Murthy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The respondent herein filed a complaint C.D. Case No. 117 of 1992 in the District Forum, Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs. 1000/-for medical tests, Rs.10,000/- for loss of practice, Rs.120/- for typing, lossof interest, etc., in all aggregating to Rs. 11,120/- 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a reserve ticket on 16.2.1991 bearing No. 03996687 for his journey from Secunderabad to Annavaram, in Godavari Express starting at 17.45 Hrs. on 2.3.1991. He also purchased a return ticket from Annavaram to Secunderabad on 3.3.1991 bearing ticket No.03996688. For reservation of return ticket a message was sent to Visakhapatnam i.e., originating station. Accordingly, in the ticket it was mentioned as MSG RO/M-Sent which means Message Return Request on message and no reservation fee or surcharge was collected excepting the fare. Reply to the said message was received in the reservation complex that the complainant was wait listed as number 125. Bu...

Employees Association, Rep. by Its President K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. S ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT48

A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. In view of the considerable importance of the following two questions raised in this appeal, a Division Bench of this Court deemed it appropriate to refer them to a Full Bench, by an order of reference dated October 5, 1989:'One of the principal questions raised in this appeal is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the express bar contained in Section 105 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966.........In the instant case, the suit is for setting aside a sale conducted pursuant to the sanction given by the Commissioner and the Government under Section 74 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1966 without challenging the said orders.The second question is whether the sale is void or a mere irregularity which can be cured by providing some compensation as suggested by the learned Single Judge, who referred the case to the Division Bench.'2. For the purpo...

Kedarisetti Suryanarayana Vs. Kedarisetti Venkataraju

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT95

ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No. 18/68 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pithapuram, filed this revision petition challenging the order made in I.A.No. 508/89 in O.S.No. 18/68 allowing the application to bring on record certain third parties as legal representatives of the seventh defendant. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein.2. O.S.No. 18/68 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share which was decreed on 27-2-1970 and final decree petition is pending. While so, the seventh defendant died on 13-5-1979. However, this application was filed after long gap of nearly 10 years under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to bring certain third parties as respondents in the final decree proceedings. The main objection of the petitioner herein, is mat after the death of the seventh defendant, L.R. application should be filed under Order 22, Rule 3 C.P.C. and if no such application is filed, the suit i...

D.V. Krishna Murthy Vs. P. Viswanath

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP43; 1993(2)ALT184

ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Hindupur in I. A. No. 189/89 in O.S. No. 24/ 89. The suit was filed against the firm and its partners. Pending disposal of the suit, an application was filed under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C., to attach the properties of one of the partners i.e., the third defendant, who is the petitioner herein. After counter was filed, the lower court ordered attachment before judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.2. Sri R. V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in case the partnership firm falls in debts, the properties of the individual partners cannot be attached before judgment. In support of the above contention, he relied upon S. 49 of the Indian Partnership Act, which reads as follows:--'49. Payment of firm debts and of separate debts:-- Where there are joint debts due from the firm, and also separate debts due from any partner, the property of the firm shall be ...

J. Balarami Reddy and Others Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Aut ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Redely, President: 1. Earlier the Regional Transport Authority on 26.5.92 granted a permit for a town services route to ply the bus from D.S.R. Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore to Leguntapadu village via Venkateswarapuram, Milk Dairy, Leguntapadu Cross Roads through Peddepadugupadu GNT Road. While so, according to the complainants, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority without looking into the convenience of the public, varied the route for including three more halts, that is, Polytechnic College, Kovur and Inamadugu cross roads between the two terminals. Complaining that the said variation is not in public interest and is causing considerable delay in passengers reaching Leguntapadu village on account of the fact that there were three railway level crossings, the above complaint is filed to direct the respondents not to deviate from the original route of town service No. 36 and not to connect the Polytechnic College and Kovur Inamadugu cross-roads. 2. No...