Andhra Pradesh Court March 2000 Judgments

Mamta Gupta Vs. Mukund Kumar Gupta

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD285; 2000(3)ALT211; II(2000)DMC403

1. Both these Tr. CMPs, can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner is the wife, who filed both the petitions. She filed Tr.CMP No.216 of 1999 to transfer OS No.39 of 1998 pending on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the file of Family Court, Indore and Tr.CMP No.217 of 1999 is filed to transfer O.P. No. 201 of 1998 pending on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the file of Family Court, Indore. The respondent-husband filed OP No.201 of 1998 for divorce and the suit OS No.39 of 1998 for permanent injunction. Both the matters are pending on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad.3. Though the facts leading to the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was narrated at length, they are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in these cases. As far as these petitions are concerned, the petitioner states that the marriage was solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1996, OP was ...

Praveena Sreeramineni Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD378; 2000(3)ALT155

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging G.O. Ms. No.368, Agriculture and Co-operation (Cooperation IV) Department, dated 29-12-1999, by which the powers that were delegated earlier to the officers subordinate to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by G.O. Ms. No.89, Food and Agriculture, dated 29-3-1965 and G.O. Ms. No.34, Food and Agriculture (Co-operation IV) Department, dated 16-1-1989, were modified and again reconferred on the principal officer i.e., Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of five Societies, mentioned therein.2. The learned single Judge found that for the sake of administrative convenience, the Government had carved out an exception of reconferring the powers upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (herienafter referred to as 'the Registrar') in respect of five societies mentioned in the G.O., which powers, in fact, were exerci...

Gusani Steels (Pvt.) Ltd., Fatehnagar and Others Vs. Shantha Bai and O ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD412

ORDERN.Y. Hanumantiiappa, J. 1. Allthese writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Special Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 12 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in LGC No.3 of 1988 dated 20-1-1992.2. For the purpose of disposal, the rank of the parties is being referred as arrayed before the Special Court and the third parties as third party petitioners.3. WP No.6065 of 1992 is filed by the respondent Nos.16, 3, 15, 18 and 38 seeking writ of certiorari to declare Sections 7 and 8 of the Act as discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional and quash the judgment and decree of the Special Court under the Act passed in LGC No.3 of 1988 dated 20-1-1992.4. WP No.24706 of 1996 is filed by the third parties numbering 61 seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 20-1-1992 passed in LGC No.3 of 1988 by the first respondent is not binding on the petitioners herein as they are not made parties to the said proceedings as required under 3rd ...

A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad Vs. Mohammed Sadatullah and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD429; 2000(3)ALT46

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Allthe writ petitions have been filed to quash the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1995 passed in LGC No.137 of 1989 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short the 'Special Court').2. WP No.23232 of 1995 is filed by the A.P. Housing Board (Respondent No.22 in LGC). WP No.22580 of i995 is filed by one P. Abraham (Respondent No.4 in LGC). WP No.8797 of 1996 is filed by R. Hemalatha, G. Venkateswarlu and Smt. D. Venkayamma (Respondents 34 to 36 in LGC) and WP No.9565 of 1996 is filed by all the 4 applicants in LGC.3. Since all the writ petitions arise out of same judgment and the point involved is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.4. For purpose of convenience the parties are referred as arrayed before the Special Court.5. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are as follows:Applicants 1 to 3 are the sons and applicant No.4 is the wife o...

Dr. T.M. Jayarama Reddy and Others Vs. Bingi Sreeramaiah Chetty and Ot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(4)ALD136; 2000(4)ALT81

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and decree passed in OS No.1 of 1997 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.2. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in AS No.1108 of 1997 and defendants 5 to 10 are the appellants in AS No.939 of 1998.3. Originally the suit in OS No. 143 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tirupati for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17-1-1986 and for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed inrespect of the plaint schedule properties after receiving Rs.20,75,000/- from the plaintiffs and in default to have the sale deed executed through the Court. Later the said suit was transferred to IV Additional District Court and renumbered as OS No.1 of 1997. In these appeals the parties arc referred to as arrayed in the suit.4. Defendants 1 to 3 are interrelated to each other. 2nd defendant is the wife...

Mohd. GousuddIn Vs. Shahjahan and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALT423

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In view of the decision of this Court in M. Nagender Rao v. B.M. Lakshmaiah, : 1996(2)ALT489 , the revision purportedly filed Under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act against the order refusing amendment in a pending rent control case is not maintainable as it does not fall within the ambit of the section. Hence, on this short ground, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, it is open to the lower appellate Court to consider the question regarding the propriety of the order of the Rent Controller in refusing amendment while disposing of the appeal if that issue becomes relevant for the disposal of the appeal. The refusal of the amendment by the Rent Controller does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from filing a separate application seeking eviction on account of the default during disputed period. Any observations made on merits of the case shall not be put against the petitioner while disposing of the main rent cont...

Country Club India Limited Vs. M.B.R. Prasad

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-II in C.D. No. 610/1999 dated 3.1.2000 sought to be questioned by the opposite party in that C.D. The complainant is the respondent in this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the complainant applied for membership of the appellant club i.e., the Country Club, on 26.6.1996 and that he paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was in fact realised by the appellant on 2.7.1996. The grievance of the complainant was that the complainant did not receive any membership card and that he was not allowed to utilise the facilities of the club. He addressed letters dated 26.3.1997 and 8.11.1997 to Chairman and Managing Director of Amrutha Hotels Pvt. Ltd. which was owning the Country Club at that time. As he did not get any proper response he also got issued legal notice dated 29.12.1997 to which also he did not receive any reply. He, therefore, approached the District Forum alleging de...

V.S. Prakasa Rao Vs. Commissioner of Sports and Vice-chairman and Mana ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD812; 2000(3)ALT252

ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh on 8-8-1974, The petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 1-9-1976 and he was further promoted as Superintendent with effect from 11-3-1983 and at the relevant point of time he was serving in the office of the first respondent. The petitioner tendered his resignation to the post on 31-12-1998. His resignation letter reads as under;'To The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of A.P.L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. Sir, 1 am not keeping good health as such I have decided to tender resignation to the post of Superintendent in SAAP under VRS with effect from1-1-1998. Please accept the same and arrange to settle all the dues to me. Thanking you, Sir, Yours failhfiilly, Sd/-. (V.S. Prakasha Rao)Superintendent'2. The Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh on the same day issued proceedings dated 31-12-1997, accepting the resignation of ...

Podugu Nagaraju Vs. Maturu Narayana Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD312; 2000(3)ALT85

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller, Amadalavalasa, dated 6-6-1995, passed in IA No.224 of 1994 in RCC No.4 of 1992.2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord, who filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner herein in the said RCC No.4 of 1992 under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent, Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') While the said petition was pending, the tenant fell in arrears of rent, even in respect of agreed rent of Rs.400/- p.m. The landlord-respondent filed petition under Section 11(4) of the Act, seeking eviction of therespondent on the ground that an earlier order in IA No.51 of 1994, dated 30-7-1994 passed by the Rent Controller in respect of payment of arrears of rent by the date fixed by the Rent Controller, was violated by the petitioner. Under the previous order dated 30-7-1994, the Rent Controller directed that the tenant shall deposit the arrears of rent...

Bantharam Bichappa and Others Vs. District Collector, R.R. Dist. and O ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(4)ALD206; 2000(3)ALT744

ORDER1. This is a writ petition tiled by four persons. The grievance of the petitioners is that their land was taken but no compensation had been paid. During the course of hearing, after the counters were filed, this Court found that land admeasuring 3.5 acres belonging to first petitioner had been taken possession of by an Executive Engineer in December, 1998. The possession had been taken without any authority of law.2. Every citizen in this country has right to possess property and it is settled law that .1 citizen cannot be deprived of his property ordinarily, but in the interests of the State the property can be taken away subject to limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, a full-Hedged Code has been enacted in the form of Land Acquisition Act. The State has no power or authority to enter into anybody's property unless and until a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is promulgated. Here is a case where land was taken, it was put to use and even the notifica...