Andhra Pradesh Court November 1996 Judgments

Bandaru Ramulamma Vs. the Inspector-general of Prisons and Director of ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(4)ALT726

ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the mother of the convict viz. B. Ramulamma, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to send her son i.e. B. Venkatesh @ Bujji to a Borstal School immediately so as to enable him to avail the benefits of the provisions of law contained in A.P. Borstal Schools Act by declaring the inaction of the respondents in sending her son to a Borstal School as illegal, void and arbitrary.2. The writ affidavit filed by the writ petitioner herein shows that her son B. Venkatesh @ Bujji was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 396 I.P.C. before the III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 372 of 1992. On evidence the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the son of the petitioner herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Agains...

Mohammed Baig Vs. Ismail Begh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1119

ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Bodhan in O.S. No. 213 of 1981 dated 30-7-1996 are sought to be revised in this Revision Petition.2. The Petitioner is the defendant in the suit whereas the respondents were the plaintiffs. The suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 alleging that the plaintiffs were dispossessed of the suit schedule property by the defendant without their consent and forcibly. On a contest, the learned District Munsif found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property within six months prior to the date of suit and accordingly directed that they be put in possession of the same.3. Smt. A. Sushanti, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned District Munsif has exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the question of title and also awarding mesne profits in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.4. Mr. Shyam Sundar, the learned Counsel for t...

Rasineni Lakshminarsu Vs. Akula Sreenivasulu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(3)ALT636

R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent-Judgment Debtor in E.P. 137 of 1990 in O.S. No. 415 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadiri questioning the orders dated 10-12-1991 by which his plea claiming the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer was rejected.2. The respondent herein who is the Decree Holder in E.P. No. 137 of 1990 had filed the said execution petition seeking arrest of the petitioner who is the Judgment-Debtor. The petitioner contested the said execution petition claiming the benefits of Act 7 of 1977 contending that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7/77 and the debt shall, therefore, be deemed to have been discharged and that he is also not having sufficient means to pay the decree amount and as such the E.P. is liable to be dismissed.3. The learned District Munsif rejected the plea of the petitioner regarding the benefits claimed under Act 7/77 observing that the suit pronote is dated 15-6-1978 and Act 7/77 came...

Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Morampudi Prasada Rao and or ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(2)ALT358

ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. Respondent No. 3, the insurer in M.A.T.O.P. No. 555 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam has filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal dated 23-3-1990 awarding Rs. 65,000/- by way of compensation in a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') filed by the present Respondent No. 1 alleging negligence against the driver of the lorry bearing No. RNR 2309 which involved in the accident dated 25-3-1988 damaging the machinery and the foundry belonging to Respondent No. 1 herein. The Tribunal having found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver, awarded compensation at Rs. 52,946/- towards damages to the machinery and the foundry; Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of earnings for six months at the rate of Rs, 2,000/- per month and in all Rs. 65,000/- in addition to interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and costs. Aggrieved by th...

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. T. Yasodha and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1133

ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in OP. No. 354 of 1987 dated 30-1-1990 is challenged. That was a claim petition under Section 110-A of the MV Act 1939 (for short, the Act) filed by the respondents herein, who are the wife, children, parents and brother of the deceased Vithal, who died in a motor vehicle accident said to have been caused due to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 1840 on 23-1-1987. The appellant is the Corporation which contested the claim which was laid for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal, after holding an enquiry, held that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the age of the deceased at 30 years and his income at Rs. 500/- per month and fixed Rs. 300/- per month as the loss of contribution to the family and with the multiplier of 16 for his age, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 57,60...

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. T. Yashodha and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1(1998)ACC245

B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in OP No. 354 of 1987 dated 30.1.1990 is challenged. That was a claim petition under Section 110-A of the MV Act 1939 (for short the Act) filed by the respondents herein, who are the wife, children, parents and brother of the deceased Vithal, who died in a motor vehicle accident said to have been caused due to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 1840 on 23.1.1987. The appellant is the Corporation which contested the claim which was laid for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal, after holding an enquiry, held that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the age of the deceased at 30 years and his income at Rs. 500/-per month and fixed Rs. 300/- per month as the loss of contribution to the family and with the multiplier of 16 for his age, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 57,600/-. Add...

Svr Tours and Travels Vs. Dilsuknagar Consumers Council

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint OP 1125/94, District Forum, Hyderabad was filed by Dilsuknager Consumers Council, Hyderabad on behalf of 11 complainants. According to the allegations in the complaint opposite party M/s. SVR Tours and Travels advertised in papers promising Shirdi tour on 2 x 2 push-back seats in brand new Video Coach. Attracted by the advertisement, on 8.6.94 N. Venkateswarlu booked three seats for journey to Shirdi and other 8 complainants also booked seats for jouney to Shirdi and back. It is the case of the complainants that instead of providing 2 x 2 push back seats in a Video Coach, the opposite party provided an ordinary bus. At 6.30 p.m. on 8.6.94 when the bus left Hyderabad, it was raining and the complainants found to their dismay that wiper was not functioning and that there was loud rattling noise under carriage and also terrific rattling noise of the windows, due to which the complainants could not sleep and did not have comfortable journey...

S.G. Constable, A.K. Mandal Cisf, Unit Visakhapatnam, Port Trust Vs. U ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(4)ALT911

S.R. Nayak, J.1. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Security Guard - Constable in the services of the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Calcutta. While he was working in Unit 76 C.P.T. Calcutta, he was placed under suspension by the Commandant, C.P.T., Calcutta vide service order Part-I, No. 88/82 dated 7th September, 1982 (MP-P1) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969. A charge memo dated 2-11-1982 (M.P2) was issued by the Commandant. The charge memo reads as follows:-'Charge No. 1:- No. 7317424, S.G., A.K. Mandal of 'B' Coy. C.I.S.F., Unit C.P.T. Calcutta, is charged with-GROSS MISCONDUCT- in that he was detailed for duty at shed No. 2, N.S.D. ground floor in 'C shift from 12-00 hours on 31-8-82 to 5-00 hours on 1-9-82. At about 4-30 hours, on 1-9-82, he was found in possession of a roll of Polyster Textile cloth numbering 555 made in Japan, without any authority.'The Commandant, C.I.S.F., C.P.T., Calcutta, who is respondent 4 is the disciplina...

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT296

Lingaraja Rath, J.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has appeared. Though the matter has been listed for admission, the matter has been heard in full with consent of parties.2. The appellant charge-sheeted the respondent No. 2 for departmental enquiry on five heads of charges on allegation that the respondent No. 2, who is a Conductor with the appellant, has failed to punch the tickets issued by him to passengers on five occasions totalling nine tickets. The charges having been found established he was removed from service. An Industrial dispute having been raised and referred to the Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad which having found the departmental enquiry to have been not proper, allowed the parties to adduce evidence. It independently came to the conclusion of the charges to have been established but found the removal from service to be disproportionate to the circumstances of the case and hence directed reinstatement into service as a ...

Sanasapuri Pedda Sambamurthi Vs. K. Rama Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2(1997)ACC417

B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam dated 25.6.1990 dismissing OP No. 19 of 1988, which was filed under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) seeking a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries and the disability suffered by the claimant/ appellant due to the accident on 29.6.1987 at 9.30p.m. said to be due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, is in challenge in this appeal. The OP was dismissed on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that it was the 1st respondent who caused the accident and secondly for not proving the case to get the compensation, although assessed at Rs. 15,000/- in view in view of the failure to prove the accident as against the 1st respondent.2. Mrs. Renuka, the learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal in regard to the proof of the 1st respondent causing the accident in addition to his negligence, is not...