Andhra Pradesh Court March 1999 Judgments

State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. Pioneer Builders Overruled

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALT1

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 3-4-1996 made in O.S. No. 4/92 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, allowing the suit claim in part. A.S. No. 2207/96 has been filed by the defendants. A.S. No. 237/98 has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 3-4-1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal in O.S. No. 4/92 dismissing the suit against certain claims. Hence, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. The rank of the parties is reported as in the trial Court.2. The brief facts for disposal of these appeals are as follows:-The case of the plaintiff is that it entered into an agreement bearing No. 19/SE/88-89, dated 28-2-1988 with the 2nd defendant to execute the work pertaining to earth work, excavation, lining and construction of structures of S.R.B.C. from 10.000/10.220 K.M. to 10.000/17.056 K.M. for a sum of Rs. 6,40,32,961/-. The site in question was handed over to the plaintiff ...

Transport Corporation India Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpora ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1999)IILLJ581AP

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Since the facts and question of law that arises for consideration in all these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Employees Insurance Court in E.I. Case. No. 52 of 1992 dated March 15, 1992; E.L.C. No. 54 of 1992 dated March 15, 1992; E.I. Case No. 1 of 1994 dated May 12, 1994; and E.I. Case Nos. 35,30,31,41,33,39 of 1990 dated November 6, 1993 respectively holding that the Hamalies are employees and the Transport Corporation is liable to pay contribution, the appellant-Transport Corporation filed these appeals. In C.M.A. No. 1021 of 1992 the order under challenge relates to the applicability of the provisions of the E. S. I. Act as well as the period of limitation and hence this appeal will be considered separately. The facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are as follows.3. The appellant herein filed petitions before Employees Insurance Court at Hyderabad under Section 7...

M. Venkata Ramudu Vs. B. Bayapa Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALT207

ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadpatri in I.A.No. 124 of 1998 in O.S.No. 63 of 1998 dated 16-11-1998.2. The petitioner is the defendant. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 63 of 1998 for permanent injunction. He also filed an interlocutory application for appointment of Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit-schedule property relating to the existence of the alleged stone wall and the pipe line.3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the Commissioner was appointed ex parte by the lower Court, the Commissioner did not give any notice to him and he submitted the report ex parte without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. When an objection was raised before the lower Court, the same was rejected and, therefore, he submits that the order of appointment of Commissioner was illegal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not avail...

Challa Rajendra Prasad Vs. Asian Coffee Limited, Secunderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD372; [2000]100CompCas689b(AP)

1. This application is filed in Company Petition No.1999 of 1998. The said Company Petition is filed by Asian Coffee Limited (ACL) and three other transferor Companies viz., Coffee Lands Limited (CLL), Charagni Limited (CL) and Veerarajcndra Estates Limited (VEL) (hereinafter referred to as 'Transferor Companies'), for the approval of the scheme of amalgamation with Consolidated Coffee Limited (Conscqffee) (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company). A counter is filed by one of the share-holders of Asian Coffee Limited (ACL) by name Mr. Challa Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to 'the applicant') objecting for such amalgamation.He has also filed the present Company Application No.6 of 1999 to direct the ACL to furnish the details of the valuation report and also the calculations as to how they have arrived at the exchange ratio, so as to enable the applicant to file a reply to the counter filed by the ACL. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is contended t...

Panchayat of Kokanasayanapalem Vs. Pagolu Ramaswamy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD494; 1999(2)ALT658

1. Questioning the orders of the 1st Additional District Judge, Krishna District, at Machiltpatnam in IA No.191 of 1998 in AS No.76 of 1998, the present CMA is filed by the Executive Officer, Kokanarayanapalem Gram Panchayat.2. The brief facts of the case are that there is tank in RS No.226 (Old Sy. No.l) in Kokanarayanapalem village. It is the case of the local washerman that the schedule property (tank) in question is their private land and by washing clothes as well as by catching fish in the tank they are eking out their livelihood. While things stood thus, for the first time during the year 1994 the Gram Panchayat tried to lease out the fishing rights in the tank by public auction. Questioning the action of the Gram Panchayat, the District Panchayat Officer as well as the auction purchaser,one Mr. Pagolu Ramaswamy, representing himself and other washermen of Gudur village filed OS No.262 of 1995 seeking declaration of title in respect of the schedule tank and perpetual injunction ...

Dodda Ranga Rao Vs. District Collector, Guntur and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD522; 1999(2)ALT428

ORDER1. These two writ petitions aredisposed of by common order as the issues involved in both the writ petitions are the same.2. The petitioner is the landlord ofthe cinema theatre Leela Mahal. On 16-4-1950 lease was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent at Rs.750/- p.m. The landlord filed RCC No.58 of 1992 on the file of Prl. District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Guntur, for eviction of the 3rd respondent on the following grounds : (i) Wilful default in payment of rents ; (ii) sub-letting the premises; (iii) unauthorised additions to the building ; and (iv) Requirement of the building for bona fide personal occupation. The RCC was allowed by order dated 24-6-1996 and eviction was ordered. However, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal in RCA 22 of 1996 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur, and obtained stay of eviction on 13-6-1996 in IA No.2366 of 1996. The landlord made a representation dated 12-8-1996 to the 1st respondent not to grant any licence to the 3rd re...

E. Venugopal Chetty Vs. Dist. Collector, Chittoor and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD726; 1999(4)ALT67

ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction that Respondents 1 and 2 should implement the order alleged to have been passed by In am Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri, in his Proceedings ROC No.3901/59 dated 19-4-1961 in relation to the land in TS No. 32 and in S.No. 302 of Timpathi Revenue Village, Chittoor District.2. The learned single Judge with an elaborate, detailed judgment dismissed the petitioner's claim on variety of grounds.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant even after a prolonged argument has been unable to make out any arguable point in support of his arguments. In the first place, the glaring fact which stands out is that the order, of which petitioner seeks implementation, was passed as long as back in 1961 April. The Writ Petition in question was filed in July, 1996. Thus he is seeking implementation of the order after about 35 years. The delay and laches...

Khairunnissa Begum Vs. Branch Manager (Finanace), City Bank N.A.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. This complaint was presented before this Commission on 5.12.1992 under Section 17(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction to the opposite party i.e. Branch Manager (Finance), Citi Bank N.A., 766 Anna Salai, Shakti Towers, Madras to pay damages of Rs. 1,70,000/- for the mental agony and tension caused to the complainant due to arbitrary acts, harassment, cheating and breach of trust of the opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant as revealed by the allegations made in the complaint are that she borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,335/-on 15.11.1990 from the opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a Kinetic Honda Scooter, that the said amount is repayable in 36 instalments of Rs. 549/- each, that the complainant paid the instalment amounts from May, 1991 to March, 1992, that on 11.3.1992 the officers of M/s. Nagarjuna Finances at Punjagutta said to be the agents of the opposite party came to her house and asked her to come to their offi...