Andhra Pradesh Court August 1999 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunnapu Govindamma and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD547

ORDER1. The Insurance Company is the revisionist.2. The respondents No. 1 to 6 are the claimants in OP No.497 of 1986. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, passed an award in the said OP on 27-7-1990 for an amount of Rs.73,500/-. The claimants filed an application for execution in EP No.1 of 1994 against the owner of the accident vehicle and the revisionist-Insurance Company which was respondent No.2 in OP No.497 of 1986. The revisionist filed an objection that the amount cannot be recovered from it because there is ambiguity in the decree. The application was resisted.3. The executing Court rejected the objection on the ground that in the first clause of the decree the award was passed for Rs.73,500/- in favour of the petitioners (claimants herein) and against the third respondent (8th respondent herein) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and as per clause two, the second respondent (revisionist herein) was made liable to satisfy the decree ...

Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(2000)ACC377; 1999(6)ALD509; 1999(6)ALT187

ORDER1. The APSRTC has filed the writ petition assailing the orders of the 1st respondent in A.P. No.157 of 1996 dated 17-9-1996.2. The relevant facts are as under:(a) The 3rd respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent for grant of permit for a new town service route -Eluru Old Bus Stand to Vasantavada (via) YMHA Hall, Kalyanamandapam, Jute Mill, Bridge, Vengaigudem, Burlampadu, Kothuru, Satyanarayanapuram, Pedapadu, Naidugudem, Pathapedapadu, Rajampeta. (b) The 2nd respondent while considering the said application recorded the following facts: 1. Total length of the route : 19.4 Kms.2. Distance upto municipal limits : 3.3 Kms.3. Distance beyond muncipal limits : 16.1 Kms.4. RTC overlapping : 15.5 Kms.5. Road condition : BT.road - 18.8 Kms, and Metal road -0.6 Kms. On an analysis of the said fact situation in the context of the approved route of the petitioner herein published in G.O. Ms. No.919, dated 24-9-1976, the 2nd respondent found that the new town service route applie...

Y.V.S.R. Moorthy Vs. District Judge-cum-estates Abolition Tribunal and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALT150

ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the order passed by the first respondent herein in T.A. No. 1/85 and T.A. No. 6/86 dated 22-10-1990 remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal for further enquiry.2. Before adverting to the question that falls for consideration, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts:One Tadeparthy Ramanadha Swamy filed a claim petition claiming ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac. 21.20 cents in R.S. No. 61, 62/1, Rushikonda Village. It is claimed that the lands were purchased under different sale deeds in the year 1943 by Venkata Ramanadhaswamy, the claimant. The lands were under his personal cultivation. The petitioner herein claims to be the successor in interest of the said Venkata Ramanadhaswamy. The Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac. 5.77 cents only. The said Ramanadhaswamy died during the pendency of the proceedings.3. The petitioner herein filed appeal. No. 1/85 before the ...

Union of India and Others Vs. Dr. R. Purushotham Reddy

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 Chittoor District Forum dated 22.2.1994 sought to be questioned by the opposite parties in C.D.C. No. 161/1991. The complainant in that CDC is the respondent before us. The respondent was served, but he has not appeared before us. We heard the arguments for the appellants. The record of the District Forum is also before us. We perused the record and the order of the District Forum. 2. The complainant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon having his nursing home named as Bindu Nursing Home in Chittoor. He was having a telephone in his nursing home since 1984. At the relevant time the number given to his telephone was 2546. According to him the monthly bills for his telephone did not exceed Rs. 620/- and he was paying the bills regularly without committing any default. On receiving bill dated 1.8.1991 for Rs. 2,738/- he complained about it to the 2nd appellant on 26.8.1991 and requested him for a revised b...

M/S. OdIn Retreaders (P) Limited Vs. Janga Ram Babu

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Counsel for the appellant is heard. The respondent, Mr. Janga Ram Babu, is not present and there is no representation on his behalf. He is called absent. 2. The record of the District Forum is before us. We find that there is no basis for the District Forum surmising that it was the duty of the appellant to retread. From a reading of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant we find that his positive case was that the tyres given by him were retreaded and that they were brought to his place for delivery. In para 2 of his complaint the complainant stated as follows : After 15 days the opposite party came to Wyra to deliver these three tyres after retreading and he stated that the servicing charges has been enhanced Rs. 150/- each to these three tyres in total he demanded Rs. 450/- excess on the said bill of Rs. 3,000/-. On the other hand the appellant i.e., opposite party before the District Forum in O.P. No. 328/1995, categorically stated that the...

Thatikonda Venkateswarlu Vs. Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Wara ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD543; 2000(1)ALT204

ORDER1. All these petitions raise same questions of fact and law, therefore they are decided by this common order. All the petitions are filed on behalf of the persons who are accused in cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act. In some cases bail applications have been rejected by the Sessions Judges and in some of the cases the Magistrates have dismissed the bail petitions. Writ petitions have been filed solely on the ground that the enforcing agency as well as the Courts below are treating the offences under Amending Act 18 of 1981 which has since lapsed, therefore, the offences are needed to be tried under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 without having recourse to Amending Act 18 of 1981.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.3. The Essential Commodities Act was amended by an Amending Act being Act 18 of 1981 with from effect 1st September, 1982 and offences under the Act were made non-bailab...

Gangavath Samya Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD537

1. The petitioner herein is a tribal. His father was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.31/AA measuring two acres situated at Chandragiri Revenue Village of Garla Mandalam which admittedly forms part of agency area. The petitioner's father has entered into an agreement of sale of the said land in favour of Podesetty Gopiah who is a non-tribal on 28-7-1979. As sale of land in agency area in favour of a non-tribal is illegal, respondent No.2 the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded suo moto under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation for evicting the purchaser. Accordingly, under Section 3(2)(a) of the said regulations, the ejectment order was passed against the said purchaser.2. The petitioner claims that the purchaser from the petitioner's father had delivered back the possession of the land to the petitioner and that he has been in possession of the land and that the respondents-revenue authorities were trying to interfere with his possessi...

Golla Pochaiah Alias Jangaiah and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD322; 1999(5)ALT734

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners, who are represented by a Power of Attorney Holder, pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in passing the award in Proceedings No.B/1040/79 dated 20-7-1993, as illegal and void. The petitioners also pray for issuance of consequential directions directing the respondents herein to pay compensation in accordance with the award dated 25-4-1993 stated to have been passed by the very same 3rd respondent herein.3. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of any relief, it may be appropriate to have a look at the relevent facts.4. The petitioners claim to be true and absolute owners of agricultural land bearing S. No.48/57 (part of old S. No.44/1) admeasuring Ac 5-34 guntas situated District (hereinafter referred to as 'the said lands'). Admittedly, the said lands were the Government...

BurhanuddIn Quadri and Another Vs. Md. Shafi Quzzaman and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD273; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)714; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)184

ORDER1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in CCNo.278 of 1999 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in which the petitioners are the accused facing charge under Section 500 of IPC in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein.2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said CC. Petitioner No.1 has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad and petitioner No.2 has been the Chair Person of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. Respondent No.1 herein is an IAS Officer who has been working as Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh. He was at the relevant time working as such in thedepartment of Minorities Welfare. During that period some appointments were made in the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board headed by petitioner No.2. On account of discover of prima facie irregularities in those appointments, the Government of Andhra Pradesh handed over the matter to ACB for enquiry. When t...

ic-3423k Lt. Col. SwaIn Shashanka Shekhar Vs. Union of India and Other ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD830; 1999(5)ALT526

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) who is a Lieutenant Colonel serving the Indian Army impugned the order of transfer transferring him from Secunderabad to Jaisalmer in Rajasthan inter alia contending:(i) that the transfer is the mala fide action of one Colonel R.K. Gupta, Deputy Commandant, ADC Centre, Secunderabad; (ii) that he has already served in the active area of insurgency for three years, consequently he cannot be transferred again to an active area of Jaisalmer; and (iii) that he is medically unfit to be posted at Jaisatmer. 2. Learned single Judge, after appraising of the contentions raised, came to the conclusion that since the respondent No.4 is not the transferring authority, consequently; neither the question of mala fide arises as against him nor the same can be gone into in the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, in view of the appellant's transfer earlier, in April, 1998 and repatriatio...