Andhra Pradesh Court November 2001 Judgments

Gundu Preemsagar and ors. Vs. Nagabandi Jayashankar

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(1)ALD554

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order-dated 28-8-2001 has referred the following questions to a Division Bench.1. Whether the ground of wilful default will not be available to a landlord even if the irregular payment or rents had been clearly established on the sole ground that the landlord had received the rents before the institution of the RCC despite the fact that the rents were received by the landlord on protest and without prejudice to his rights?2. What is the effect of the ratio laid down in Dakaya Alias Dakaiah v. Anjani, : AIR1996SC383 , K.A. Ramesh and Ors. v. Susheela Bai, : [1998]1SCR892 , and M. Bhaskar, v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, : (1996)6SCC228 .3. Whether doctrine of waiver can be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case?4. Whether running of business by a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the light o...

T. Indira Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(5)ALT203

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Since these writ petitions are connected they heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.Writ Petition No. 29837 of 1998:2. This writ petition is filed by the owner of Flat No. 103 in 'Sri Sai Sri Apartments', Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, bearing House No. 16-11-765. According to the petitioner, the respondent-M.C.H has permitted the builder to construct a complex, consisting of stilt plus three upper floors, to be utilised only for residential purposes, specifically mentioning in the permit that the stilt should be used exclusively for parking of vehicles and it should not be converted or used for any other purpose, and the builder has given an undertaking to that effect. In 1995, the petitioner and other flat owners were put in possession of the flats by the builder. According to the petitioner, the common area and parking area are unauthorisedly put to commercial use and encroached upon by the builder and the builder, deviating from the sanction...

Ganduri Eswaraiah and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2002]125STC406(AP)

ORDERmotilal b. Naik, J.1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus declaring G.O. Ms. No. 780 dated September 12, 1997 and Section 14-C(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and beyond the power of the Legislature and the Government, and consequently to set aside G.O. Ms. No. 780 dated September 12, 1997 and Section 14-C(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and to direct the first and second respondents to complete the assessment of the petitioners on the basis of Section 14-C and pass such orders in the interest of justice.2. Since the issue is common in these three writ petitions, for appreciating the issue we record the facts of the case relating to Writ Petition No. 30752 of 1997 and dispose of these three writ petitions by the following common order.3. Writ petitioners who are dealers of Napa slabs in Macherla town of Guntur di...

State of A.P. Rep. by M.R.O. Vs. G. Venkamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALT321

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is the petitioner in all the three writ petitions which are directed against a common order dated 22-11-1994 passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. 1987 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Court' in L.G.C. Nos. 40 to 42 of 1994.2. W.P. No. 19615 of 1998 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 22-11-1994 made in L.G.C. No. 40 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court, and to quash the same. Similarly, Writ Petition No. 20277 of 1998 has been filed assailing the order of the Special Court made in L.G.C. No. 41 of 1994 whereas Writ Petition No. 19871 of 1998 has been filed assailing the order in L.G.C. No. 42 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions arise out of a common order of the Special Court and since common questions of fact as well as law arise ...

J.M. Benedict Vs. Mithileswari Jaiswal

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD787; 2002(3)ALT163

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This revision is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by the tenant.2. The respondent is the owner of the residential premises bearing No.5-9-496 and 497 situated at Gunfoundary, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the said premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.130/- including water and electricity charges. The respondent filed RC No.745 of 1992 in the Court of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of willful default of payment of rent from 1-11-1990 to 31-10-1992 and that she require the premises for her personal use and occupation. In the petition, the respondent pleaded that the petitioner paid rents upto October, 1990 and thereafter stopped paying the rents and that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,120/- towards accumulated rents upto October, 1992. The RC was filed on 10-11-1992. It was also stated th...

Kantamani Srihari Rao Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)193; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)161

E. Dharma Rao, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 1996 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, at Eluru dated 24.2.1998, under which the learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur against the revision petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 403 and 406, IPC, altered the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused from Section 420 to Section 417, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-.2. The revision petitioner herein is the accused.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.9.1987, while the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh late Sri N.T, Rama Rao was addressing a public meeting at Gopalapuram, the revision petitioner-accused with a fraudulent and dishonest intention induced him to believe him as a social worker, Se...

Devi Rani Vs. N. Prakash Rao and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant had a mild fever and so she visited the clinic of the first opposite party, hereinafter called as Doctor for treatment on 9.10.1987, who advised her to take two tablets of Amalar. After taking the tablets the complainant had a swollen body and in some parts of the body she had visible signs of Ammavaru (rashness like chicken pox). The complainant requested the doctor to attend on her at her residence but the latter flatly refused. When the complainants husband went again the Doctor advised a tablet of Cibexinio and Glycerine bottle. The complainant accordingly took the tablets and after some time she also applied Glycerine as suggested by the doctor, but instead of cure the complainant had high swollen body figure and there were rashes and scratches on the body. After taking Amalar tablets the complainant had filthy/bad odour from her mouth and also from the nose. The doctor due to his sheer negligence prescribed Amalar tablets which ...

Hassan Ali Khan Vs. B. Seshagiri Rao and Sons Industries Limited and A ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant seeks for replacement of the car by a brand new one and claims a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation towards the loss of business sustained by him together with a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and strain suffered by him. 2. The facts that emerge on a reading of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Estate AC car from the first opposite party on 30.1.1995. On 31.1.1995 the car started giving trouble and it stopped on the way after covering a distance of 1 km. from his house. In fact he had an important meeting with the members of Nizams family to finalise the deal regarding investment of their money in the complainants Company. However, a mechanic was brought at about 5.30 p.m., who examined the car and said that the fault was in solenoid valve switch but repaired it temporarily and started the car. That complainant was advised to send the car to the workshop on 1.2.1995. The faulty solenoid switch wa...

Beebanu Vs. Abdul Rasheed

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD474

Satyabrata Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act) read with Rule 11(2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'), falls for determination in these references:2. Section 20(3) of the Act reads:The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the power of the appellate Court to remand the matter to the Rent Controller, is circumscribed by reason of Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, and in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Ekramuddin v. Smt. Sheela Bai Ekbote, 1972 APHN...

A.S. Mehta and Co., Rep. by Its Partners Vs. Yogendranath Sachdev and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(6)ALT723

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These two C.R.Ps. are filed by a common landlord A.S. Mehta and Co., represented by its partners Mr. Devendra Kumar Mehta and 5 others. The petitioners in both R.C.Nos. 288/82 and 289/82 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, filed eviction petitions against two different tenants, one Yogendranath Sachdev, the respondent in R.C.No. 288/82 and another Optical Centre represented by its partner Wajahat Hussain, the respondent in R.C. No. 289/82. In R.C.No. 288/82, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked and likewise R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R-1 to R-16 were marked and ultimately, the R.C. was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.A.No. 171/91 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the appellate authority had reversed the matter, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the said R.C. have filed C.r.p.No. 5513 of 1998. In R.C.No. 289/82, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-1 t...