Andhra Pradesh Court April 1993 Judgments

Tubati Rangarao Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. According to the complainant, who is appellant in this appeal, he raised Gogu sticks in an extent of Ac. 15.00 in Turlapadu village and insured his crop of Gogu sticks from 20.5.1986 to 20.8.1986 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and paid premium. A fire accident occurred on 5.6.86 in which the insured's Gogu sticks were burnt. He informed the said fire accident and the lost of the property to the Insurance Company on 5.6.86 and a Surveyor was appointed on 6.6.86. He submitted his report on 12.8.87 estimating the probable loss at Rs. 18,500/-. As the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, the complaint approached the District Forum with a complaint. 2. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence found that the fire was due to accident and that the insurance policy covers the risk of fire. It therefore held that the repudiation by the Insurance Company is unreasonable and arbitrary. But, on the question of quantum of damages it did not rely on the ev...

Smt. Laleemma @ Lalithamma and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar-cum-land Acquisi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(3)ALT456

ORDERSubhashan Reddy, J.1. The point raised in this writ petition is as to whether there is a necessity of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') to the Claimants, even though the amount is not awarded in their favour but the matter is referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act by making deposit of the award amount as contemplated under Section 31(2) thereof. To meet the contention of the petitioners that Section 12(2) notice was not issued, the respondent filed a counter stating in paragraph 2 thereof, that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not issued as the compensation amount was deposited in the Court pursuant to the reference made under Section 30 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that the limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act runs from the date of Section 12(2) Notice, if the awardees are not present at the time of passing the award.2. In so...

Mudumekala Hanumanna Vs. the District Collector and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT744

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. It is distressing to note that a citizen like the petitioner herein has been deprived of his valuable property of Ac. 5-77 cents way back in the year 1981 in the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act that too by invoking urgency clause dispensing Section 5-A enquiry under the said Act. Possession was taken over and the pattas were distributed, houses were constructed for poor and they were also inaugurated. The beneficiaries had been in occupation of the said houses and the laudable object of providing house sites to the poor is achieved. So far so good. But corresponding obligation of the State to pay the compensation to the petitioner which is the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution has not been complied with. From 1981 to 1993 the petitioner is driven from pillar to post begging for compensation. In fact he need not beg for compensation as he has got a right to claim compensation which is guaranted unde...

N.D. Gandhi and ors. Vs. the Secretary, South Central Railway Employee ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT739

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These petitioners seek a relief for stepping up of salary of the petitioners on par with that of the third respondent. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the post of Junior Clerk while the third respondent was promoted from a lower cadre and he has even initially served as a Peon and then promoted to the post of Record Tracer and then to the post of Junior Clerk. May be the third respondent due to his length of service earned increments and was drawing more salary. But the fact remains that while he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk from the lower cadre, the petitioners were directly recruited to the post of Junior Clerk and are admittedly seniors in that cadre to the third respondent. It is needless to mention that both the petitioners and third | respondent discharge the same functions and ordinarily are entitled for equal pay and more so when the petitioners are admittedly seniors to the third respondent. But the c...

The Dy. General Manager, A.N.L. Percel Service Vs. D. Akki Raju

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The appellant herein is the opposite party in the District Forum, Adilabad. The case of the complainant is that he booked an empty cylinder with the opposite party on 1.11.1991 under invoice voucher No. 483906, from Mancherial to Kothagudem Branch. Since the empty cylinder was not delivered at Kothagudem, he filed the above complaint either to return the empty cylinder or money. 2. After service of notice on the opposite party no counter was filed but one Anwarullah Khan represented the opposite party before the District Forum. The District Forum held that in view of the documents filed by the complainant it can safely be held that empty gas cylinder was booked with the opposite party and that he had not delivered the same at Kothagudem. It further held that as the complainant stated that the cost of the empty cylinder, even according to the opposite party, is Rs. 1800/- and as the complainant also asked for compensation for the inconvenience and har...

Andhra Sinters Ltd. Vs. P.F. Inspector

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1994(68)FLR983]; (1994)ILLJ1171AP; (1994)ILLJ1171SC

Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This batch of petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing different prosecutions launched by the first respondent against the petitioners, viz., Andhra Sinters Limited, represented by its Managing Director, P. Bhima Raju.2. In this batch of cases Mr. R. Kameswara Rao vehemently contended that the first petitioner-company has become a sick unit and that the matters are under consideration by SIER, hence these prosecutions launched for recovery of various amounts due under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Scheme thereunder should be quashed. He claims that under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, viz., Act 1 of 1986, there is suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc., and as the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Section 22, these prosecutions are not maintainable. He further contends that as early as May 29, 1990, the Central P...

Gaigolupadu Panchayati Venukabadina Kulala, Geetha Karmikula, Sannakar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT707

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Challenging the acquisition of an extent of Acs.197.15 cents situated at Gaigolupadu village, belonging to the members of the petitioner-Sangham, this writ petition is filed. Objection to the acquisition is that the members of the petitioner-Sangham are small farmers and as such the lands should not be acquired. Even if the members of the petitioner-Sangham are small farmers, the said aspect may be relevant in so far as the acquisition for house-sites is concerned where the choice is more, but not for an acquisition like setting-up an Auto Nagar. For setting up an Auto Nagar, several aspects like location, congestion of traffic, pollution etc., are relevant factors and as such the choice is very less and more so in view of the necessity of large extent of land nearing 200 acres for such a public purpose. In the circumstances, I do not accept the contention advanced by Mr. Varma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard. However, there is yet ...

Andhra Cements Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. M.P. Jian Vs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT680

ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the defendant against the order of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No. 2125 of 1992 in O.S.No. 1236 of 1992 appointing a Commissioner for the purpose of seizing the machinery of the defendant with the police assistance, bringing the same to Hyderabad and keeping it in the custody of the plaintiff.2. The suit is filed for recovery of of Rs. 8,49,999-59 ps. alleged to be the balance due in respect of the Financing Lease Agreement and also for recovery of the machinery supplied to the defendant. The defence taken in the lower court was that the defendant supplied cement worth Rs. 15,00,000/- and odd to a sister concern of plaintiff-company which was agreed to be adjusted towards instalments payable by the defendant. During the pendency of the civil revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of Ex. A- 1 agreement the plaintiff has claimed rebate ...

Govt. of A.P. Through Its Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Sathaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT252

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The short, but important question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of certain land, situated within the Urban Agglomeration as defined in Clause 'N' of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in view of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') when an issue relating to Land Grabbing arises out of pleadings2. The respondent filed O.S.No. 460 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration and for possession of the suit land, measuring 3636 Sq. Yards, together with profits against the petitioners. The suit was admittedly filed in April, 1984 i.e., long after Act 12 of 1982 came into force i.e., on 29-6-1982. The petitioners who are (1) The Government of Andhra Pradesh (2) The Collector, Hyderabad District ...

Kanamarlapudi Kusumamba Vs. Chejerla Venkata Subbaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT333

ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The controversy in this C.R.P. has its seed in the womb of the compromise which was entered into between the parties in the earlier round of litigation. It relates to executability of the compromise decree in proceeding initiated by the petitioner under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The petitioner is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed an application for eviction of the tenant in R.C.C.No. 9 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kavali, on two grounds, viz., i) wilful default, and ii) bona-fide requirement for the business of her son. The parties compromised and the learned Principal District Munsif passed decree in terms of compromise on 24-11-1988. Pursuant to the said compromise decree the tenant was to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlady on or before September 30,1991. As the tenant failed to do so, the landlad...