Andhra Pradesh Court April 1999 Judgments

A. Vinayananda Reddy Vs. T. Gurunatha Reddy and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALT105

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The appellant herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O.S. No. 170 of 1987 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District. The respondents herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, costs of the suit and other reliefs.2. It was averred by the plaintiff that the property described in the plaint schedule is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The suit village was originally in the Zamindari Estate. The grandfather of the plaintiff named Raghava Reddy @ Chengal Reddy acquired the suit property and other properties from the then Zamindar of Punganur Estate long prior to the notified date under the Estates Abolition Act. After the abolition of Estate during the survey and settlement operations in the year 1960, ryo...

Mohammed Noushed and Others Vs. Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Education De ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD241; 1999(3)ALT621

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Thesewrit petitions arise out of a common order dated 27-4-1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in a batch of OAs. viz., OA Nos.2968, 2293, 2399 of 1995; and 5973 of 1996. Filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the orders passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners that their cases had to be considered for selection to the post of Hindi Grade II Pandits in the vacancies that are available as on the date of notification viz., 28-7-1994. The Tribunal had rejected the claim on the ground that the appointing authority have the power to withdraw a notification and until appointments are made, no right accrues to the petitioners. But that is a question apart, as the real question is whether vacancies arising even after the notification can be filled with the candidates who have been called for the interview pursuant to the notification. In that context the foot note appended to t...

itc Limited, Calcutta Vs. Coromandal Cashews Limited, Madras

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD238

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the First senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA No. 1643 of 1996 in OP No.7 of 1996 dated 9-11-1998, whereunder, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed on 27-8-1996 in OP 7/96 was dismissed. The factual background of this case is that the respondent herein filed OP 7 of ! 96 on 17-1-1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioners went on taking adjournments to file counter. On 27-8-1996, when the request was repeated, the senior Civil Judge passed the following order:'Counter not filed, requested for time is refused. It is recorded that respondent has no counter. Heard arguments. Petition is allowed. Sri Justice P.L.N, Sharma, retired Judge of High Court is appointed as arbitrator to determine the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 25-9-1992. Petition is ordered accordingly'.2. On ...

N. Vanajakshi (Miss) Vs. Principal, University College for Women, Koti ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD617; 1999(3)ALT572

1. Heard.2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st respondent in correcting the results of the petitioner's First Year Chemistry paper supplementaty examination, 1996 (Roll No.951328) as failed and consequent withholding the results of B.Sc., Education Degree Examination as illegal, void and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and for further declaration that she has passed the First Year Chemistry Paper Supplementary Examination, 1995 with Roll No.951328 and consequently declare her B.Sc., results.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner the petitioner stated that she joined 4 years B.Sc., course in the year 1994, after completing her Intermediate and in the First Year she has opted Botany, Zoology, Chemistry and Education. She further stated that the College has introduced B.Sc., Education with a view to create a special cadre for the qualified teachers in t...

N. Madanna and ors. Vs. M. Siva Nagi Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD330; 1999(3)ALT269

ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order dated 24.11.1998 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool in C.M.A.No.24/1998. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 3.8. 1998 passed on I.A.No.1423/1998 in O.S.No.419/1998.2. I have to note at this stage itself that the plaintiffs have filed a suit inO.S.No.419/1998 for injunction along with I.A.No. 1423/1998. On this I.A., they prayed for an injunction against defendants 1 and 2, restraining them from interfering with the discharge of the functions of the petitioners as duly elected office bearers of Kodumur Taluk unit of N.G.O.'s Association, pending trial of the suit. The Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the said l.A.No. 1423/1998 by granting an order of injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendants 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.24/1998...

Mohd. Jaleel Vs. Palavarapu Rama Murthy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD154; 1999(3)ALT336

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-3-1999 passed in IA No.37 of 1999 in OS No.4 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. The said 1A was tiled under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 by the revision petitioner herein (defendant) for summoning the Sub-Registrar, Suryapet to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner (defendant).2. The facts relating to this revision may be stated briefly as follows :The petitioner is the defendant in the suit which was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a registered mortgage deed. It appears one of the attesting witness (PW2) examined on behalf of the plaintiff, during his evidence, deposed that consideration under the document was paid before the Sub-Registrar. But, (he registered document itself does not contain any endorsement that consideration was paid before the Sub-Registrar. The said IA was filed to summon the Sub-Registrar presumably to controvert the evidence of PW2 that consideration was paid ...

Akula Srikanya Jyothsna Vs. Commissioner of Government Examinations an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD62; 1999(3)ALT649

ORDER1. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-The Commissioner of Government Examinations, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad-1, to produce the answer script of the petitioner in Mathematics Paper-I and Paper-II of S.S.C. Public examination conducted in the month of March, 1998 with Roll No. 1069365 and allot the correctly evaluated marks. It is the case of the petitioner that she has appeared for the S.S.C. examination and that she was expecting first class marks in mathematics. However, she was declared to have passed successfully onthe basis of grace marks awarded by the Government. In the mathematics paper, it is stated, even though she ought to have secured much more marks, passing of the examination by grace marks was not satisfying the consciousness of the petitioner. Therefore, she filed this Writ Petition for producing the answer script and properly and correctly evaluate the answers.2. Learned Government P...

General Manager, South Central Railway and Another Vs. K. Abdul Waris

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The Railway officials who were opposite parties in O.P. No. 185/1994 have preferred this appeal questioning the order of the Anantapur District Forum in that O.P. dated 20.12.1996. The complainant in that O.P. is the respondent before us. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties i.e. Railways, to pay him compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and also a sum of Rs. 500/- towards costs. This is questioned by the appellants before us. 2. The facts of the caseeven as admitted by the appellantsclearly establish gross deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. Admittedly the complainant took a second class ticket from Anantapur to Ahmedabad for travel on 9.5.1994 by Kurla Express and got reserved a berth in that train from Anantapur to Dadar. Berth No. 9 in Section 6 coash was allotted to him. Xerox copy of the ticket was filed by him alongwith his complaint. He stated in his c...

Kotakadi Lakshmi Devi Vs. Badam Nageswara Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD325; 1999(3)ALT278

1. These two cases relate to same subject matter and between the same parties. Hence, I am disposing both of them by this common judgment.2. CRP No. 1918/1998 is filed by the judgment-debtor in OS No.494 of 1984, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20-4-1998 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool on EA No.672 of 1997 in EP No.364 of 1996 in OS No.494 of 1984. It has to be noted at this stage itself that B. Nageswara Reddy filed a suit in OS No.494 of 1984 against B. Laxmi Devi for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an agreementof sale dated 18-6-1984. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17-7-1985 and the said decree has become final. In those circumstances,' decree holder filed an execution petition against the judgment-debtor for executing the sale-deed. As the judgment-debtor did not execute the sale-deed, it was the Court that ultimately executed the sale-deed, it was the Court that ultimately executed the sale-deed in ...

Surya Industries, Ida Cuddapah Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD615; 1999(3)ALT586

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. The case hasbeen remanded by the impugned order dated 14-8-1998 by the authority underthe Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, inter alia, observing that while granting the lease to the petitioner, the State Government has been guided bythe fact that the impleaded party has established the industrial unit with borrowed funds. Without going into the merits of, the matter, it was observed by the authority' that the disposal of such mining lease application as envisaged under the Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 does not place any premium on these considerations. It was also observed that the State Government erred in relying on this extraneous fact to reach the conclusion contained in the order granting lease in favour of the petitioner. It was further observed that the authorities did not take into consideration the relevant factors listed out in Section 11(3) of the Act for granting the mining lease. Apart from the fact, it was obse...