Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)ALD319; 2003(3)ALT360
G. Rohini, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Judgmentdated 24.8.1993 in A.S. No. 633 of 1982, whereunder the learned single judge affirmed the Judgment and decree dated 22.3.1982 in O.S. No. 61 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. 2. The defendants are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 61 of 1979 seeking a decree against the defendants 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 personally and against the estate of the 1st defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,01,293 with subsequent interest and also for certain other consequential reliefs. The said suit was decreed as prayed for granting future interest at 6% p.a. on principal amount from the date of suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S. No. 633 of 1982. Regarding future interest, which was disallowed partly by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Cross-objections. A learned single Judge dismissed both the appeal as well as the Cross-objections. Henc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004ACJ1881; 2003(6)ALT300
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. All the appeals can be disposed of by common order. The appeals are filed by the claimants on a very limited issue as to the liability of the insurance company.2. The claimants travelled in a trailer as coolies on 8.6.1993 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, it turned turtle and consequently all the occupants in the trailer received injuries and, therefore, they laid claims for compensation.3. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal further recorded that since the tractor was insured and trailer was not insured, the liability was fastened only on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was absolved of the liability. Aggrieved by the said order to the extent of absolving the insurance company from the liability, the above appeals are filed by the claimants contending that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD548; 2003(2)ALT770
S.R. Nayak, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners initially questioned the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short 'Amendment Act 23 of 1995') by which the levy and collection of life tax has been enhanced from 5% to 7% on the cost of the vehicle on four wheelers which are used for personal purpose. After hearing this batch of writ petitions, when the Court pointed out that by Amendment Act 23/1995, the Legislature has only enhanced the rate of life tax from 5% to 7%, but the method of computing life tax on the basis of the unladen weight and value of the vehicle was introduced in case of four wheelers by Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1992 (for short 'Amendment Act 11, of 1992') and that Amendment Act 11 of 1992 was not challenged, some of the petitioners amended the prayers in the writ petitions so as to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment Act 11/1992 also.2. Before dealing with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD517; 2002(6)ALT675
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioners herein who are practising advocates in the District Court, Mehboobnagar, have filed these writ petitions aggrieved of the process of decision making of the Government in appointing the 3rd respondent as Public Prosecutor for the third term for the Court of Sessions Judge, Mehboobnagar through G.O. Rt. No. 587 (L.A&J.; Courts.A.2) Department dated 13.5.2002, as per Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the administrative instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 187 Law (L) Department, dated 6.12.2000, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post or till termination of his services whichever is earlier. 2. Before going into the merits of the cases, it is apposite to consider the power and pivotal position of the Public Prosecutor. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for the Bench, in the case of Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment and Ors., : 1980CriLJ1084 , held the Public Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD306
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Osmania University represented by its Registrar, beingaggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.9.1999 in WP No. 4158 of 1998, has preferred this writ appeal. The respondent herein viz., B. Lakshman filed the above writ petition under Article 226 praying for the following relief: 'Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned letter contained in No. 4685/619/76/Esst.I dated 20.12.1997 issued by the respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, unconstitutional, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent herein to consider the claims of the petitioner herein for the post of Assistant Registrar in the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD592
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner was issued a Social Status Certificate on 4-6-1996 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palavancha, Khammam district, the 3rd respondent herein, certifying that she belongs to Schedule Tribes Community. On the strength of the same, she was selected for admission into M.B.B.S., course in the year 1998. At the time of admission, the Certificate was to be signed afresh by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Accordingly the petitioner is stated to have approached the 3rd respondent on 3-8-1998. It is alleged that instead of signing it, the 3rd respondent seized the same. Aggrieved by that action, the petitioner filed WP No. 24 784 of 1998. Pursuant to the interim order passed therein, the Certificate was restored to the petitioner and the writ petition was accordingly closed, through order dated 5-10-1998.2. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 9-12-1998 by the 1st respondent directing her to show-cause as to why the Social Status Certificate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD597; 2002(6)ALT484
Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ. 1. Both the writ appeals were filed by V. Chandrasekhara Naidu, respondent No. 3 in both the Writ Petition Nos.3853 of 2002 and 5233 of 2002. The said two writ petitions were filed by Ms. P.Jhansi and T.Ravi respectively for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam represented by the Executive Officer in selecting and appointing the third respondent V. Chandrasekhara Naidu as A.P.R.O. vide proceedings dated 16.2.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to the official respondents to appoint the writ petitioner in each writ petition as A.P.R.O. in pursuance to the selections held on 15.2.2002.2. The factual matrix of the case which led to the filing of these writ appeals is that the writ petitioner in No. 3853 of 2002 Ms. P. Jhansi applied for the post of A.P.R.O. in T.T.D. in pursuance to the notification published in Eenadu daily. She is a post-graduate in Mass Communication and Journalism an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD772
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. The revision petitioners assail the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 as regards the proper Court fee to be paid on the plaint. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who seek to file the suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 for cancellation of the decree in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhongir. The earlier suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 was filed on 28.4.1987 for declaration of title in respect of dry land measuring 30-00 acres. The said suit was decreed on 19.4.1988. Basing upon the knowledge of the decree, the plaintiffs who are not the parties thereto are now impugning the said decree in the present suit. In the process, they valued the suit at the rate at which the property was valued in the former suit. On an objection taken by the defendants about the inadequacy of the valuation in the present suit, the Court below after having heard either sid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALT488
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Both these matters being interconnected were heard together and are being disposed by this common Judgment.2. Review Petition No. 600 of 2002 is filed by Smt. Lakshmi Parthasarathy, Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as review petitioner) seeking review of the orders of this Court dated 17-4-2002 dismissing the Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 2002 filed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 21-2-2002 in Contempt Case No. 1002 of 2001 holding that she was guilty of contempt and directing compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No. 26192 of 1998 dated 11-11-1998 and the directions issued in C.C. No. 1289 of 1999.3. L.P.A. No. 179/02 is filed against the directions issued in C.C. No. 1002 of 2001 directing the review petitioner to consider the grant of layout to the respondent-association without reference to the urban land ceiling clearance and title and to release the layout within a period of two m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003AP254; 2003(1)ALT312
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This petition is filed to review the common order dated 12-12-2001 in AAO No. 1285 of 2001 and CRP No. 3497 of 2001.2. For the sake of convenience we would hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the appeal.3. At the outset we express our regret for signing the common order, sought to be reviewed, without correcting the typographical errors and mistakes that crept therein, which are noticed by us during the hearing of this petition. Since as per Section 152 CPC, Court has power to correct such errors, we order the following corrections in the common order dated 12-12-2001 reported in : 2002(1)ALD154 .(i) In page 2 'para 3 line 9' delete the word 'and' after WELTOL PLUS' and before 'culminated'. (ii) In para 4 at page 3 'lines 18 and 19' delete the sentence reading 'whatever strong words they are made, are not sufficient to establish fraud or misrepresentation the allegation of fraud' and substitute the sentence 'in however strong words they might h...
Tag this Judgment!