Andhra Pradesh Court February 1998 Judgments

Lakshmi Priya Township Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Prasanth

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Hyderabad District Forum in I.A. No. 258/1997 in O.P. No. 376/1996 dated 19.9.1997 dismissing the application of the petitioner herein for setting aside the ex parte order of the District Forum dated 28.2.1997 in O.P. No. 376/1996 purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC holding that the Civil Procedure Code had no application to the proceedings of the Tribunals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The National Commission in Director, Forest Research Institute v. M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, I (1997) CPJ 64 (NC)=1997 (1) CCC-Consumer refused to recall its order on the only ground that an adjournment sought was refused observing that there was neither any application for adjournment on record as claimed by the review petitioner nor any telegraphic intimation for that purpose and that as there was no appearance by or on behalf of the opposite party before the National Commission, the...

M.A. Faiz Khan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD475; 1998(2)ALT219

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Jyothi Kiran for the respondents.2. The C.R.P. is directed against the order passed by the Court below in I.A.NO. 1962/97 in O.S.No.713/95, by the I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, rejecting the application filed for permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, with liberty to institute a fresh suit which was filed and numbered as O.S.727/94.3. The petitioner filed O.S.713/93 against the respondent without issuing statutory notice under Section 685 of the H.M.C. Act.Admittedly, want of statutory notice is fatal to the maintainability of the suit. He, therefore, wants to withdraw the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner even before the application was allowed, instituted a fresh suit on the same cause of action in O.S.727/94. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the filing of the second suit on the same cause of action precludes the Court to grant permission under Orde...

J. Sameerana Vs. A.P. State Council for Higher Education and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD460; 1998(2)ALT113

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Thesewrit petitions raise important questions of law regarding the correctness of allocation of seats in private Engineering Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh.2. While the petitioners in W.P. Nos.21283 and 21894 of 1996 had appeared for EAMCET-96 examination, the petitioners in W.P.No.34392/97 had appeared for EAMCET-97 examination. The fact that the petitioners had appeared for such examination of EAMCET-96 and EAMCET-97 and respective ranks secured by them are not in dispute.3. Though EAMCET examinationcomprises Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Courses, the relevant subject in these writ petitions is Engineering. There are several Private Engineering Colleges run by the private bodies which are larger in number than Governmental Engineering Colleges run by the Universities. Dispute is with regard to mode of allocation of seats in the said private Engineering Colleges. While the Government is following the ratio of 42:36:22 respectively for And...

K. Inbasagaran Vs. Government of India and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD470; 1998(2)ALT191

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 2-4-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No. 1444 of 1996. The validity of the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.836 Public Department, dated 26-7-1996 has beenchallenged. But, the said G.O. was sustained by the Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition.2. The petitioner is an I.A.S. cadre Officer and while working as Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, he faced disciplinary action on the following charges:'Charge I:That you, Thiru K. Inbasagaran, IAS, during the check period 1-4-1978 to 14-9-1993, are found to have acquired and in possession of pecuniary resources and properties held in your name and in the names of others, which are disproportionate to your own sources of income to the extent of Rs.50,00,186.82, for which you could not account satisfactorily, and thereby failed to maintain absolute integ...

Liquors India Limited Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD741; 1998(3)ALT193

ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions are manufacturers of Indian Made Liquor (IML). The common point for our consideration in these petitions is whether the respondents are entitled to demand the licence fee at the rates specified in Rule5(1)(b) of A.P. Distillery Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') based on the actual production capacity of the petitioners manufacturing units, ignoring the quantity they were permitted to manufacture per annum as endorsed in column (3) of the licence granted to them in Form D-2 or without making any endorsement in the licences issued to them as to the quantity they were permitted to manufacture per annum. In order to appreciate this point, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of Rule 5 and Form D-2. Rule5 as substituted by G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (E.III) Department dated 1-2-90 and published in A.P. Gazette dated 5-2-90 reads as under:'5(1) Where the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled...

B. Ramulu Vs. E.N. Setty

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD824; 1998(3)ALT121

1. The appeal is brought by the defendant in O. S. 724 of 1983 on the file of the I Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was for dissolution of thepartnership firm 'Prakash Paints' and for rendition of accounts from 5.5.1965 till date and for a decree for the amounts found due towards the share of the respondent. The court below decreed the suit and a preliminary decree was passed with costs for dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts from 1-4-1982.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are, briefly, as follows: Originally, the appellant, respondent. Smt. K.Sitaratnamma and R.P. Markanday constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of ''Prakash Paints and Varnish Works' under a partnership deed dt.5.5.1965. On 14.8.1971 Markanday retired from the partnership and the remaining three partners continued the business by reconstituting the firm under the name and style of 'Prakash Paints' and a fr...

C. Venkatesulu @ Venkatesu Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(3)ALD549; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)675; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)567

ORDERN. Y. Hanumanthappa, J 1. The sole accused in S.C.No.75 of 1993 on the file of the in Additional District and Sessions Judge is the appellant herein. He was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 379, 394 r/w 397, IPC for causing the death of one Smt. Narayanamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with a big knife near her fields in Perumallapalle village on 10-6-1991 at about 9.30 p.m. and for committing the theft of her gold ornaments viz., two ear studs (MOs.2 and 3), gold nose screws with white and red stones (M.O.4), nose screws with white stones (M.O.5) and gold ring with white stones and blue stone (M.O.6). He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC and also further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Sections 3...

General Manager, A.P. Telecommunications and Others Vs. Puspa Shyam Le ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. By its order dated 10.1.1997 in C.D. No. 558/93, the Hyderabad District Forum directed the opposite parties i.e. officials of the Telecom Department to remove me deficiency in their service in respect of Telephone No. 852535 of the complainant and for that purpose to reduce the call units of the impugned fortnight from 9230 call units to 1400 call units, to prepare the disputed bill dated 1.12.1992 afresh, to recover from the complainant the amount of such bill so prepared and to adjust the excess payment if any made by the complainant towards its future bills. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the Telecom Department officials preferred this appeal. As there is a delay of 189 days in preferring the appeal, this application is filed by the appellants requesting for condonation of the said delay. In support of the application an affidavit of the Divisional Engineer, Legal Cell-11 of the office of the General Manager, Hyderabad, Telecom District has been filed. It w...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Syed Bude

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The appellants in these appeals are the opposite parties in O.P. Nos. 277/1995 and 279/1995 on the file of the Guntur District Forum. They question the orders of the District Forum both dated 7.11.1997 allowing the complaints of the respondents in these appeals on the sole ground that the District Forum failed to correctly appreciate the effect of the violation of the conditions in the insurance policies taken in respect of their respective vehicles involved in the accidents. The default relied upon by the appellants is carrying of passengers unauthorisedly in the vehicles at the time of accidents involving the vehicles concerned. On behalf of the appellants the learned Counsel vehemently contended that any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies issued by the respondents would have to result in rejection of their claims under the said policies. We find that the question raised by the learned Counsel is covered by the decision of A...

K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. T. Seshachalapathi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALT610; 1998(2)ARBLR87(AP)

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. All these three matters arise out of a common order passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.121 of 1992 and O.P.No.84 of 1992 dated 23-7-1993,2. O.S.No.121 of 1992 is filed by the joint Arbitrators for making the award passed by them on 19-2-1992 as rule of the Court and also to award costs of the suit. The first defendant in the said suit is the Union of India, represented by its Chief Engineer, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. The second defendant is Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, the contractor.3. O.P.No.84 of 1992 is filed by the Union of India seeking to set aside the Award dated 19-2-1992 passed by the Arbitrators. The first respondent in the said O.P. is K. Venkatteswar Rao, the Contractor and the Respondents 1 and 2 are the joint Arbitrators. The Court below by a common order dated 23-7-1993 decreed the suit O.S.No.121 of 1992 with costs making the award passed by the Arbitrators dated 19-2-1992 as rule of the Court...