Andhra Pradesh Court August 1997 Judgments

Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O. and Another Vs. N. Timmarisheshwar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in CD 184/91 District Forum, Nalgonda is the owner of house bearing No. 3-80, Nayanagar, Kodad and obtained electricity service connection No. 680 on 23.7.73. Initially the service was under category No. II i.e. non-domestic. Subsequently from 1.3.1985 it was converted from non-domestic to domestic category. According to the complainant he shifted his family to Hyderabad in January, 1987 and has been residing in Hyderabad and his house at Kodad was kept locked till January, 1990. In January, 1990, his house was let out. Initially the Electricity bills were paid on the basis of slab fixed at Rs. 10/- per month and subsequently the category was changed to Rs. 15/- and thereafter to Rs. 18/-. According to the complainant he has been paying the bills according to the slab rate as could be seen from Ex. A-l, adjustment bill for the period from October, 1983 to September, 1984. Ex. A-2 is the bill dated 20.2.1985 for the period from 11/84 t...

Sri Sai Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chintala Rama Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(5)ALT545

B.S. Raikote, J. 1. Though the matter was earlier posted for consideration of the vacate stay petition but on 19-6-1997, both the Counsel submitted that the main matter (i.e. appeal) itself could be heard and finally disposed of. Accordingly the appeal itself was heard on merits. 2. This is defendant's appeal challenging the order of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 13-12-1996 in I.A. No. 649/96 in O.S. No. 14/96. By the impugned order the Court below granted an injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff restraining the appellant/defendant from using the trade mark in question i.e. 'Mathurag Ghee' with the pictoral device of Lord Krishna in sitting posture. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and order of the lower Court is illegal and without jurisdiction and the Court below has not applied its mind to the facts of the case properly and as such the impugned order is liable to be set a...

Kumar Embroidery Works Rep. by Its Proprietrix Smt. P. Suryakumari (Te ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(6)ALT97

Y.V. Narayana, J.1. C.R.P. No. 3002 of 1993 is filed by the tenant whereas C.R.P. No. 3978/1994 is filed by the landlord having been aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in R.C.A. No. 13 of 1992.2. The landlord filed R.C. No. 99/1987 before the learned Rent Controller- cum-Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rentals and bona fide requirement Originally, the father of the landlord late P.V. Chalapathi Rao let out the petition schedule first floor of the building to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 200/- with a condition that the rent should be paid on first of every month. While so, in the family partition, the petition schedule premises and the ground floor of the building fell to the share of the landlord. The tenant attorned to the landl...

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary, Co-operative Depa ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(6)ALT785

P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Although there is some technical problem before us that learned single Judge has not assigned any reasons, in fact, has not made the order to set aside Government Order in G.O. Rt. No. 1343 dated 31-10-1995, under which, in purported exercise of Rule 22-AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, the State Government has directed that the Elections to the Co-operative Town Bank, Tirupati purported to have notified to be held on 5-11-1995 be postponed until further orders. Having examined the contents of the said notification, we are of the considered view that Rule 22-AAA is not attracted on the facts on which the impugned Government Order is passed.. The order of the State Government reads as follows:'Whereas, the Election Officer of Co-operative Town Bank, Tirupati has issued a Notification for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of Co-operative Bank, Tirupati, on 5-11-1995;(2) An, whereas, it has come to the notice of Government that ...

Land Acquisition Officer/Spl. Dy. Collector Vs. Lal Naik (Died) and or ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(6)ALT508

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The only contest in this appeal by the State is against the award of additional amount under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said sub-section was introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Central Act 68 of 1984).2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 9-12-1981. Even much earlier, possession of the land in question was taken on 1-11-1975 probably to hasten the work relating to excavation of Kakatiya Canal. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27-3-1985. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, by the judgment dated 8-8-1986, the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial enhanced the compensation and granted the benefit of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in addition to other statutory benefits. The additional amount under Section 23(l-A) of the Act at 12% per annum was awarded for the period between the date of notification under Section 4(1) and th...

Kancherla Ram Mohan Vs. Mogal Ahmed Baig

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(5)ALT85

R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed questioning the orders of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddapah dated 12-3-1996 passed in E.A. 404/95 in E.P. 61/93 in O.S. No. 249/90 dismissing the said petition filed by the judgment-debtor No. 1, who is the present petitioner.2. The respondent herein had obtained a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share in the suit house and after passing of the ex parte decree on 5-6-91, he filed a petition in LA. 905/92 for passing of final decree. In the said final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for effecting division of the suit house for which the respondent herein, who is the decreeholder, is entitled to 2/3rd share while the petitioner herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, is entitled for the remaining 1/3rd share. The Advocate Commissioner visited the suit house and effected partition of the house into three shares and allotted 2/3rd share to the respondent herein and th...

Kunduru Seethamma Vs. Namana Nageswara Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD375; 1997(6)ALT9

ORDER1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment in SC.No. 12 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by him to recover an amount of Rs.1,537/-being the principal and interest due thereon on the basis of promissory note Ex.A1 dated 27-11-1990. The defendant contended that Ex.A1 is not supported by any consideration. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 and they proved the execution of the promissory note Ex.A1. The lower Court ultimately held that the plaintiff advanced the amount and simultaneously executed Ex.A1 which forms part of the same transaction. Thisfinding is not challenged. However during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the defendant-Judgment Debtor contended that Ex.A1 is insufficiently stamped. The amount advanced by the plaintiff is Rs. 1200/-. However, on the promissory note 0.20 ps revenue stamp was affi...

G. Krishna Rao Vs. Lalit Kumar Mehta

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(5)ALT493

Y.N. Narayana, J.1. This revision is directed against the reversing judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in R.C.A. No. 121 of 1994. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed R.C. No 94/1991 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the tenant Under Section 12 (1) (b) and Section 12 (2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'A.P. Act 15 of 1960') on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of reconstructing a new building in the petition schedule premises, i.e., shed bearing No. 8577/B, Distillery Road, Secunderabad, with a plinth area of 3500 square feet. Originally, the father of the landlord let out the petition schedule premises and two office rooms to the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business in the name and style of 'Hari Side Lace Works'. The tenant is using the shed for manufacturing purposes by erecting machinery ...

Venna Venkat Reddy and ors. Vs. Venna Gopi Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(5)ALT743

ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet in I.A.No. 583 of 1995 in O.S.No. 64 of 1989 dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners on the ground that a wrong provision was given in the petition, the present revision is filed. 2. By order dated 17-4-1997,1 ordered notice before admission. After receipt of notice the respondent engaged a Counsel who when the case is called is not present in the Court. Hence I am constrained to dispose of the revision petition after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. I have gone through the order of the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet. I am of the opinion that if any wrong provision is quoted in the petition it should have been returned at the stage of scrutiny but the Court having numbered the interlocutory application it would have permitted the petitioners to substitute the correct provision of law instead of dismissing the application straightaway on that ground. The Court is ...

Bolisetty Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Managing Director, Hi-tech Drugs Lt ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint O.P. No. 88/1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, Hi-Tech Drugs Limited, Madhya Pradesh for a direction to the opposite party to send the endorsement stickers and also for compensation and costs as according to the complainant due to the delay in sending the stickers the value of the shares has come down. 2. The complaint O.P. No. 90/1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, M/s. Ambica Proteins Limited. Ahmedabad for a direction to the opposite party to send the full-pledged share certificates and also for compensation and costs as according to the complainant due to the delay in sending the shares the value of the shares has come down. 3. The complaint O.P. No. 89 /1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, Essar Oil Limited, Chennai for a direction to the opposite party to send interest warrants for the year 1995-96 and also for compensation and co...