Andhra Pradesh Court April 2001 Judgments

S. Kishan Rao and Others Vs. Sudha Nursing Home and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The first complainant is the husband, while the complainants 2 to 5 are the children of late Kamalamma and first complainant. 2. Late Kamalamma hereinafter called the deceased complained of chest pain and she was taken to the first opposite party nursing home belonging to the opposite parties 2 and 3 on 7.7.1991. After initial diagnosis by the opposite parties 2 and 3 who are wife and husband respectively on 9.7.1991 the disease is diagnosed by them as Benign Cystic of Breast. Both the doctors have advised her to undergo an operation and assured early recovery. Accordingly on 9.7.1991 her right breast was operated after procuring report of the pathologist Dr. B. Narayan Rao. After treating her for about one week in their hospital they have discharged her assuring that everything would be normal. 3. However to the utter surprise of the complainants the deceased developed a lump in about 5 to 6 months in the right breast again on account of the defecti...

Y.R.N. Kumar Vs. Government of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD151

ORDER1. The petitioner who is an Ex-serviceman owns and possesses a house property in rural area within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent-Gram Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits conferred on the Ex-serviceman under G.O. Ms. No.83, M.A., dated 15-3-1997 is restricted to the properties situate in Urban areas only and not to the properties situate in rural areas, and therefore, the State is guilty of practicing invidious discrimination offending Article 14 postulates.2. We do not find any merit in this contention. Article 14 postulates are not attracted if the State chooses to extend the benefits in a phased manner and restricting the benefits to certain localities only. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification. Of course, in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes tho...

Guntupalli Janakiram Vs. Mro, (Urban) Seethammadhara and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALT21

ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring 201 square yards in Sy.No. 36/10-A of Butchirajupalem village within the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation pursuant to the registered agreement of sale dated 22-04-1999. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner made an application under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') on 31-03-1999 to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 01-04-1999 informed the petitioner that the competent authority does not propose to exercise the right of the first option to purchase the land. The petitioner also made an application to the 2nd respondent for permission to construct a building and obtained the same on 25-06-1999. When the petitioner started foundation work, the 1st and 3rd respondents interfered with the same. Therefo...

Koneti Venkata Rao and ors. Vs. State

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3445

D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction dated 21-4-1997 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 126/1994.2. The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC The Court below on evidence found A-1, A-3 and A-4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offence only under Section 304-B I.P.C. and passed no separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., as the Court below felt that substantive sentence is imposed for the major offence under Section 304-B, separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A is not necessary. As A-2 was not found guilty for the said charges, he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, A-1, A-3 and A-4 filed this criminal appeal.3. The story of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-The deceased...

Koneti Venkata Rao and ors. Vs. State Rep.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)816; II(2001)DMC373

D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction dated 21.4.1997 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 126/1994.2. The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. The Court below on evidence found A-1, A-3 and A-4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offence only under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and passed no separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C, as the Court below felt that substantive sentence is imposed for the major offence under Section 304-B, separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A is not necessary. As A-2 was not found guilty for the said charges, he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, A-1, A-3 and A-4 filed this criminal appeal.3. The story of the prosecution in brief is as follows :4. The ...

Battu Ramachander Vs. Government of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD619

ORDERS.B Sinha, CJ 1. This wit appeal is directed against a judgment dated 13-3-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.2258 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The said writ petition was filed seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus declaring the auction notice issued by the third respondent and allotting the mango and cashew yields and seeds to the non-tribal without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P Scheduled Area Land Transfers Regulations, 1959 and its amendment 1 of 1970 as illegal contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.2. The sole question which arises for consideration is as to whether a wide publicity was given in terms of Regulation 4 of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfers Regulations, 1959 as amended by Amendment Act No.1 of 1970. The fact of the matter is that the third respondent has issued a Notification of auction on 11-1-2001 for the yield of mango and cashe...

Kvr Forgings Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD528; 2001(3)ALT628; 2001(132)ELT588(AP)

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. Perused the office note. The opinion of the Registry that as per Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1956, the Court fee of Rs.200/- should have been collected only by way of stamps is untenable.2. No doubt Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act provides that all fees chargeable under this Act shall be collected in stamps. But the Court fee paid by the appellant in this case is not under the provisions of the A.P Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, but it is in terms of Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules and Form EA 6.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act provides that: The Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party, may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order' under Section 35-C passed on or after the 1st day of July, 1999 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the ...

General Manger, South Central Railway, Sec'bad and others Vs. Syed Far ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD751; [2001(90)FLR611]

1. These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The original applicant-writ petitioner was removed from service. Hefiled OA No.352 of 1986 in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and by an order dated 29-8-1989 the said OA was allowed. A Special Leave Petition, registered as SLP No.2066 of 1990, however, filed by the Railway Administration there - against was dismissed by the Apex Court on 9-1-1995. A review application filed by the Railway Administration was also dismissed on 9-11-1995. As the authorities have failed to reinstate the applicant - writ petitioner into service and give the consequential benefits, he filed a Contempt Case, registered as CP No.81 of 1995 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents...

Srinivas Kumar Mowle Vs. Chandrasekhar Mowle and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD670; 2001(4)ALT169

ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. This letters patent appeal arises out of the judgment by learned single Judge in appeal CCCA No.3 of 1989. This letters patent appeal has been filed by Appellant Defendant No.2 in the suit. Thesame appellant had filed the appeal which was decided by the learned single Judge.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for allotment of 1/8th share. The plaintiff contended that late Prabhakara Rao Moule was the original owner of the suit properties. He left behind him the first defendant his widow, defendants 2 to 4 being his sons and defendants 5 to 7 being his daughters, Prabhakar Rao Monk had died on 8-2-1975 and plaintiff claims that defendants 1 to 7 and the plaintiff himself were entitled to 1/8th share of the suit properties both movable and immovable. The plaintiff and defendants were in possession of the suit properties and inspite of repeated requests defendants 1 to 7 did not agree to effect the partition therefo...

Rajnik and Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (inv) Cir. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD791

ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J 1. This appeal is by the assessee-firm directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A.No.282/Hyd/97 dated 22-1-2001 relating to the block assessment for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1997-98.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The assessee firm is one of the leading cycle spare parts dealers in Hyderabad, Secunderabad and in Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh. A search was conducted on 13-11-1996 in the business premises of the group concerns and also the residential premises of the partners of the assessee and residential premises of certain employees of the assessee. The search had resulted in the seizure of certain incriminating material leading to the case of suppression of sales practiced by the assessee-firm in the form of loose slips, which were not brought to the accounts of the assessee-firm. The search has also resulted in the seizure of unaccounted cash as well as unaccounted transactions in respect of various i...