Andhra Pradesh Court June 1998 Judgments

Tammineedi Subba Rao Vs. Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies, Bhimavar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD197; 1998(4)ALT293

ORDER1. A short but an important question of law of general importance fells for decision in this writ petition. The question is whether a surcharge proceeding initiated bythe Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, for short 'the Act', on the basis of the report of enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act becomes invalid and one without jurisdiction solely on the ground that such proceeding was initiated before the report of enquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon is placed before the general meeting of the concerned society.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be stated briefly as under :The Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, West Godavari district, Eluru vide his proceedings R,C.(Coopn.) No.1974/95-A dated 13-3-1995 ordered an inquiry into the affairs of the Mrutyanjaya Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, Achanta, the fourth respondent herein. During the enquiry, it ...

Addu Mallesh and anr. Vs. G. Pandu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALT267

ORDERR. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the landlords questioning the impugned order dated 3-11-1993 in R.A. No. 175/85 by which the said appeal was dismissed confirming the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C. No. 356/84 which was dismissed.2. The revision petitioners who are the landlords filed R.C. No. 356/84 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised building which is a non-residential building on the ground that they are not having any non-residential building of their own in the twin cities and they require the demised building for their own business purposes. The Rent Controller dismissed the said petition for eviction on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to seek eviction of the demised building which is a non-residential building as they are presently running their business in ice creams and aerated water in another non-residential building which is taken by them on ...

K. Raghu Ram Babu Vs. Director General of Railway Protection Force, Ne ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD170; 1998(4)ALT736

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of sub-rule 8 of Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987. The said rule reads as under.'The enrolled member charged shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force hereinafter referred to as 'friend' where in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, the enrolled member charged cannot put up his defence properly. Such 'friend' must be a serving member of the Force of or below the rank of Sub-Inspector for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings are pending and not acting as a 'friend' in any other proceedings pending anywhere. Such 'friend' shall, however not be allowed to address the Enquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses.'2. This rule has been upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) vide its judgment and order dated 10-4-1995 in DB Civil WP No....

S. Sudershanam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALT365

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District not to proceed with the petition filed by respondents 2 to 5 u/s 332 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). The dispute relates to Ac. 7-30 guntas in Sy. No. 103 and Ac. 4.00 in Sy. No. 104 of Laxmakkapally village, Mulug Mandal. The petitioner claims to have purchased this land from one Shantilal under an agreeement of sale coupled with delivery of possession on 22-10-1971. Since the said Shantilal did not execute a sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 10 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet. The suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 29 of 1984. The said suit was decreed on 29-12-1984. Pursuant to the decree passed on 29-12-1984 the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and in turn a sale deed was executed in favour ...

Registrar, Alagappa University and Another Vs. M. Venkata Ramana

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The petitioners in FA. IA. No. 240/1998 have preferred FA. SR. No. 2327/1997 questioning the order dated 31.3.1997 of the Cuddapah District Forum in O.P. No. 50/1997 allowing the said O.P. holding that there was deficiency in service on their part and directing them to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and also costs of Rs. 200/-. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The appeal was presented on 20.3.1998 with a delay of 137 days. In the affidavit given by the Registrar of the University in support of the application for condoning the delay, it is stated as follows: "In the O.P. No. 50/1997 we have filed our objections in time. But the District Forum has allowed the petition O.P. No. 50/1997 on 31.3.1997. We have to prefer appeal within 30 days from the date of order passed by the District Forum. But we have filed our appeal with delay of 137 days. The delay of 137 days in filing appeal on our part is not due to any wilful or deli...

General Manager South Central Railway Vs. M. Prem Kishore

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. General Manager, South Central Railway, who was the opposite party in C.D. No. 319/1997 on the file of the Ranga Reddy District Forum, is the appellant before us questioning the order of the District Forum dated 1.5.1997 in that C.D. allowing the complaint and directing him to pay to the respondent Rs. 3,222/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.7.1997 till the date of payment towards reservation charges and for inconvenience and mental agony etc. The respondent was the complainant in that C.D. 2. The respondent, booked 23 tickets on 6.12.1993 and two were children. Because no alternative reserved berths were given to them in the Rayalaseema Express they had to travel in the general compartment and suffered great inconvenience and hardship. The Railways charged Rs. 10/- towards reservation and Rs. 27/- for sleeper accommodation for each of these six passengers. The complainant approached the District Forum on 11.2.1994 claiming compensation of R...

Yelamanchali Nageswari Vs. Yelamanchali Venkata Prasada Rao and Anothe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD530; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)49; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)177; 1998CriLJ4128

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-7-94 in Crl. Appeal No.3/93 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, reversing the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant for the offence under Section 494 IPC and acquitting him.2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this appeal lies in narrow compass and are as follows:The respondent Yelamanchali Venkata Prasada Rao married the complainant PW1Yelamanchali Nageswari on 12-4-1978 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Simhachalam Temple and after marriage she joined her husband and lived at Sningavarapukota and they were blessed with a son by name Saradhi on 18-7-1979. It is the case of petitioner that subsequently she was ill-treated by the respondent and he drove her out of the house and married one Sarada (A2) on 10-1-1984 in Venugopala Swamy Temple in S. Kota inspite of the protests made by her mother, PW2 during the subsistence of his marriage with her. She filed complaint before the ...

Valluri Sri Vasudeva Siva Prasad Vs. Alluri Kurminaidu and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD1; 1998(4)ALT384

ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the order in I.A.No. 5 of 1997 in O.S.No. 374 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur holding that the Court fee paid in the above suit is not correct and directing therevision petitioner - plaintiff and Respondent No.8 to pay the proper Court fee.2. The facts giving rise to this C.R.P. are as follows:The revision petitioner and Respondent No.8 filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of AC. 104.75 cents of land claiming that they have purchased the same along with 24 others whom they represent. The property has been valued notionally at Rs. 2,000/- for the purpose of Court-fee. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit and issues were framed and thereafter the trial also commenced. The revision petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also marked some documents. At this stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.5 of 1997 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the revision petitioner and Respondent...

Ravilla Doraswamy Naidu and anr. Vs. Aari Rangaiah Naidu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALT511

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. Defendants Nos. 2 and 6 are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi in A.S. 31 of 1986 by which the Judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit for injunction in O.S.313 of 1978/O.S. No. 208 of 1977 TPT have been reversed and decree for injunction has been passed.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that Ac. 1.77 cents of land in Sy. No. 167 renumbered as Sy. No. 167/15 (for short Suit Land) was assigned to some other person by Tahsildar, Puttur vide order dated 4-6-1970 because the pattedar did not cultivate the land within three years from the date of assignment. The Tahsildar, Puttur cancelled the patta vide order dated 15-12-1976 including other pattas and assigned the suit land to the plaintiff through order dated 3-1-1977. He was in possession of the same and had started cultivating the same. All the defendants started disturbing his possession ove...

Pragathi Bulk Carrier Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Both the questions that arise in this appeal preferred by the opposite party in O.P. No. 127/ 1997 questioning the order of the Cuddapah District Forum dated 9.12.1997 are covered by the decision of the National Commission in Kishan Roadways v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., III (1996) CPJ 51 (NC)=1996 (2) CPR 169 (NC). 2. The first question is whether the Insurance Company which paid the compensation to the insured under a subsisting contract of insurance executed between them, could rely upon the subrogation letter given in its favour by the insured and claim recovery from the transporter the compensation for the loss suffered by the insured in respect of goods damaged or lost while being transported by the transporter. This is not a case where the complaint was filed by the Insurance Company alone; it was filed jointly by the insurer and by the insured i.e., New Jayalakshmi Oil Mill which entrusted sun flower oil for transport to the appellant, ...