Andhra Pradesh Court December 2001 Judgments

S. Prakash Rao and ors. Vs. S. Shyam Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(5)ALT82

Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought was that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were owners of A, B and C schedule properties. Consequent to the declaration they sought injunction that defendants should not interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was claimed that the 1st plaintiff was the absolute owner of A schedule property, second plaintiff was owner of B schedule property and the third plaintiff was owner of C schedule property and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of partition dated 25th November, 1971. The defendant is owner of the first floor of the premises of the building. The said property was open land purchased by father of the plaintiffs and defendant. As the parties are brothers their father had purchased the land from one Hanuma...

G. Arjuna Rao Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mus ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(1)ALD784; 2002(1)ALT597

V.V.S. Rao, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in WP No. 5365 of 1994 dated 28-9-2001 disposing of the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein with certain directions. The parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts are as follows. The third respondent applied for grant of stage carriage permits on the new town serviceroute Tanuku Bus Stand to Brahmanacheruvu via Vaipuru, Kavalapuram, Tittiga, Rameswaram and Raameswaram Junction. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) rejected the application on the ground that the entire route of 21.6 Kms., is on the notified route and that grant of permit is prohibited under the scheme notified in G.O. Ms. No. 548 of 1978 dated 30-12-1978. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for brevity). The said appeal being AP No. 498 of 1992 was allowed on 21-5-1993 directing gr...

Kamal Silk Mills Vs. Kuncham Mohana Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(1)ALD722; 2002(1)ALT504

Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-7-2000, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, in EP No. 62 of 1993 in OS No. 1337 of 1988. 3. On 30-10-1992, a decree was passed by the I Additional District Munsif at Vijayawada in OS No. 1337 of 1988. Pursuant thereto, a sale notice was issued to the respondent-Judgment-debtor on 19-6-1997. The respondent filed counter contending that he paid the EP amount on 1-1-1993 and the alleged General Power of Attorney, which was not filed into Court, is not valid, and having regard to provisions of Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the EP is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner-decree-holder during the course of enquiry filed certified copies of the Power of Attorney in OS No. 1335 of 1988 and the judgment in OS No. 1337 of 1988 on the file of the I ...

B. Meenakshi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD96; 2002(2)ALT473

V.V.S. Rao, J .Introduction:1. The constitutional validity of Rule 3(2) of the A.P. Medical Colleges (Admission into Post-graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 ( for brevity 'the Rules') insofar as the same does not consider the petitioners as 'in service' candidates for the purpose of admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses and insofar as the same prescribes six years continuous regular service in specified Government service, is the subject -matter of these writ petitions.2. In most of writ petitions, the amendment issued to the Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 279, dated 9-7-2001, denying the benefit of reservation as 'in service' candidates to these who had already acquired PG degree/diploma qualification prior to or after their entry into service, is challened. In a couple of cases, G.O. Ms. No.260, dated 10-7-1997, whereunder the Rules were made, as indicated hereinabove, is challenged. The grounds of challenge in both the groups of writ petitions are thesame, and therefore, they are di...

Shivabagh Welfare Association, Hyd. Vs. Commissioner and Special Offic ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD552; 2002(3)ALT123

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from damaging or demolishing the houses belonging to the members of the petitioner Association situated in Sy.No.76 part in Shivabagh, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.2. The case of the petitioner-Association is that the society is formed with the object of providing all facilities and amenities to the residents of Shiv Bagh Colony, residing in the colony since 1985, and the members of the association have been regularly paying the property tax on demand from the respondents. The petitioner states that, when the Revenue Department tried to interfere with the plots and houses, a number of writ petitions were filed and interim orders obtained and one such writ petition is WP No. 3165 of 1997 wherein this Court, by an order dated 27-11-1997, granted interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering in any way with the possession of the petitioners. The...

V. Veera Swamy and ors. Vs. Drug Inspector and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)334; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)356; 2002CriLJ3218

ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court who has expressed his doubts about the correctness of an order of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No. 1899 of 1996 passed on 19.11.996. The sole question which is to be considered is whether a dealer in drugs is liable for punishment under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), if the drug found in his possession was sub-standard or spurious.It appears that quashing proceedings were launched before the learned single Judge who found that on reading of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act even a dealer is liable to be prosecuted, if the drug in his possession was found to be spurious or sub-standard, but the Division Bench of this Court had declared that a dealer was not responsible for any offence under Section 18 read with Section 27 of the Act. We have car...

K. Laxminarasimha Chary Vs. K. Satyanarayana

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD753

S.R.K. Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, District, in AS No. 11 of 1986.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be briefly summarised as follows. Appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.9 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad. Appellant's father Chandraiah had three brothers by name Venkaiah, Papaiah and Kishtayya. Kishtayya is the father of the respondent herein. These brothers had never constituted a joint family and there was no joint business. They were carrying on their caste profession and maintaining themselves with the income earned by them. Appellant's father purchased Acs. 11-16 guntas in S.No.57, corresponding to new S.No.58/1, in Gundla Marpally Village, Vikarabad Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, from out of the money saved by him. It is alleged by the appellant that his father's name was mutated in the revenue records. After the death of his father, respondent came from Karimnag...

The Managing Director, Apsrtc Vs. M. Kamalakumari and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALT180

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. Writ Appeal Nos. 621 of 1993 and 1475 of 1995 arise out of the order made in W.P. No. 18061 of 1989 whereas Writ Appeal Nos. 622 of 1993 and 1543 of 1995 arise out of the order made in W.P. No. 734 of 1992. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment dated 20.11.1992. In W.P. No. 18061 of 1998, the owners of the land acquired assailed the validity of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') whereas in W.P. No. 734 of 1992, the land owners assailed the validity of the award proceedings dated 23.7.1992. 2. Although several contentions were pressed into service while assailing the validity of the Notification and the award, the learned single Judge, without dealing with all those contentions, thought it appropriate to allow the writ petitions on the short ground that 80% of the compensation was not tendered to the owners as required under sub-section (3-A) ...

Sayed Mohammed Owais Quadri and Others Vs. Dr. Neena Desai and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The first complainant is the husband while complainants 2 and 3 are the daughters of later Nusrat Jabeen, who was consulting the first opposite party doctor for medical advice and treatment during her pregnancy. She had also undergone several tests and scanning in the second opposite party hospital on the advice of the first opposite party. In fact the first opposite party informed the first complainant from time to time that everything was normal and that she would have a normal delivery. While so before the expected date of delivery late Nusrat Jabeen was admitted in the second opposite party hospital on the advice of the first opposite party on 24.6.1993 as inpatient. The first opposite party advised lower segment ceaserian section (LSCS) on 1.7.1993. Accordingly she was taken to the operation theatre on 1.7.1993 and after some time the first opposite party informed the first complainant that she gave birth to twins, who are complainants 2 and 3 h...

Areti Maramma Vs. State Bank of India, Secunderabad and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(2)ALD479; 2002(3)ALT424

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the order of the learned senior Civil Judge, Rajole in EA. No. 77 of 2000 in EP No. 12 of 1999 in OS No. 51 of 1993.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under.3. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 borrowed certain amounts from the 1st respondent. They deposited the title deeds in respect of the property in R.S. No. 42/1 of Kattimanda village admeasuring 35 cents towards security and thereby created equitable mortgage in favour of the 1st respondent. Since the amount was not paid, the 1st respondent filed OS 51 of 1993 against respondents 2, 3 and 4. After the contest, the suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed for sale of the mortgage property granting time for redemption. Since respondents 2, 3 and 4 failed to pay the amount within the time granted for redemption, steps were taken by the 1st respondent by filing EP 12 of 1999 to bring the property to sale in accor...