Andhra Pradesh Court January 2003 Judgments

N. Balakrishna Vs. Security Officer, Apsrtc

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD895; 2003(3)ALT96

ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved of the order No. SB/686/3/95-SO(HZ) passed on 5.7.1995 by the Security Officer (HZ), IBS, Hyderabad in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Vigilance and Security Officer, dated 26.6.1995.2. Originally, the Security Officer, after conducting an enquiry imposed the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect by his order dated 15.2.1995 which was modified by the Vigilance and Security Officer by order dated 26.6.1995 as one into reinstatement into service as Security Officer, with minimum of scale in the Revised Pay Scales and without arrears. On appeal, the impugned order was passed.3. The petitioner was on leave from 1.7.1994 to the date of order and submitted medical certificate issued by the private medical practitioner, though notice was sent to the petitioner, he refused to receive the notice and a charge sheet was served. Accordingly, after completing the regular enquiry, he was re...

Allumalla Kannam Naidu Vs. Smt. Allumalla Simhachalam

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2003AP239

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr. Sridhar representing Smt. Bhaskara Laxmi and Sri Subrahmanyam, the counsel representing the respective parties.2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115, C.P.C. by the revision petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 17-9-2002 made in LA. No. 1725 of 2000 in O.S. No. 94 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The said application was filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as code in short) for the purpose of recalling PW 2, for permitting the petitioner to cross-examine on the other important crucial aspects. The learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Viziariagaram, had dismissed the said application with costs and hence, the present revision is filed.3. Notice before admission was ordered and the respondent is represented by the counsel referred to supra.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner in LA. No. 1725 of 2002 in O.S. No. 94 ...

B. Latchanna Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Environmen ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALT449

ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records and setting aside the order dated 6-8-2002 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 172 of 2002 upholding the impugned proceedings dated 30-12-2000 of the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on par with his juniors w.e.f. 30-12-2000.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Forest Range Officer in Visakhapatnam Circle on 7-11-1997. He stood at Sl.No. 151 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator and the promotions have already been made upto Sl.No. 150. While so, the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings Rc.No. 1089/99/M1 dated 30-12-2000 promoting his juniors who figure in between Sl.Nos. 152 to 216 in the seniority list, without assigning any reasons for ignoring the case of the petitioner. Therefore, he filed O.A. ...

Achanta Ramakrishna Rao Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal questioning the order made in C.D. No. 19/1997. Since he died pending the appeal, his L.Rs. were brought on record as appellants 2 to 7. 2. The case of the first complainant is that he is a holder of Cancard issued by the second opposite party Bank. The first opposite party, Insurance Company, jointly with the second opposite party launched a scheme, Cancomfort, to provide insurance coverage to Cancard holders and members of their families against personal accident and unanticipated medical expenses. The complainant subscribed to the said scheme and obtained Cancomfort Medi Claim Insurance Policy for himself, his wife and daughter. The period of the policy was from 1.12.1995 to 21.10.1996. The complainant stated that he is a known diabetic and hypertensive patient suffering from unstable Angina. He got admitted in Mullapudi Venkata Ramanamma Memorial Hospital, Tanuku on 4.4.1996 with chest pain and he wa...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

C.P. Suresh, Member: 1. The unsuccessful third opposite party in O.P. No. 318/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada, is the appellant before this Commission. 2. The facts in brief are, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have a tie-up with the third opposite party. The deceased Gopal, the brother of the complainant, obtained an Endowment Policy bearing No. 09846921/910, dated 15.2.1993 on an yearly premium of Rs. 3,600/- through opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant is the nominee under the policy. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have a tie-up with the third opposite party Insurance Company covering the risk of the policy holder in the event of death. The said Gopal went to Morbi in Gujarat State on a business trip and was accidentally drowned in a swimming pool and died there on 29.7.1993. The death was intimated to the second opposite party and on his request the death certificate, post-mortem certificate, inquest panchanama copies were sent for se...

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd. Vs. Gowri Peddanna

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The opposite parties in C.D. No. 112/1999 on the file of the District Forum, Kurnool are the appellants. The case of the complainant is that he purchased cotton seed NHH-44 2nd from the second appellant manufactured by the first appellant and sowed the same in 3.00 Acres of land in Survey No. 359 of Yanakandla Village, Kurnool District. He incurred Rs. 35,000/- towards agricultural operations including fertilisers, pesticides, etc. and adopted Farm management techniques. But the crop failed contrary to the assurances given by the appellants. He complained the failure of crop to the appellant Field Officer at Kurnool, but there was no response. The failure of the crop is due to genetic purity in the quality of the seed manufactured by the first appellant and supplied by the second appellant. On complainants from ryots the concerned M.A.O. (Mandal Agriculture Officer) inspected the field and expressed that the failure of the crop is due to genetic impu...

Balasadi Kanakarao Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant, the owner of a boat bearing registration No. FKKD 410 got it insured originally on 9.7.1992 but renewed the policy from time-to-time. While the policy was in force, the boat sailed out for fishing operations along with the crew from Kakinada Yetimoga Canal Jetty at about 4.00 a.m. on 30.3.1993 towards Kakinada anchorage area. The boat conducted its operations between Uppada and Gunta area in 30 fathoms depth smoothly upto evening of 30.3.1993. The complainant noticed at about 4.00 p.m. on 30.3.1993 that a portion of the boat was getting down and it was moving by taking jolts. The luscars checked inside the boat and found that the inner compartments were fully choked with water. They resorted to bailing out water with hand pumps and buckets, but the water level was increasing gradually. The luscar who checked the stern tube bolts found they had fallen in the force compartment of stern tube plange. Immediately the complainant got into ...

Nunna Chandrasekhra Rao Vs. Natha Prabhakar Rao and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The unsuccessful complainant in C.D. No. 185/96 on the file of District Forum, Nellore is the appellant. His case is that he deposited Rs. 75,000/- on 4.12.1992 in M/s. Rajiv Finance carried on by opposite parties 1 and 2 as Partner and Managing Partner respectively. He obtained 25 FDRs of face value of Rs. 2,000/- each and another 25 FDRs of face value of Rs. 1,000/- each. After two years opposite parties promised to pay Rs. 2,960/- for the FDRs of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,480/- for the FDRs of Rs. 1,000/-. However, on completion of two years, in spite of several demands and also through legal notice the amount was not paid. Hence he approached the District Forum. 2. Both the opposite parties denied the deposit of the money or issuance of the FDRs stating that the complaint was instigated by one Kommuru Sudhakara Rao who is the maternal uncle of complainant who was running the said M/s. Rajiv Finance who took the signatures of the opposite parties on s...

Bandi Veera Swamy Vs. Pamula Basavaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: III(2003)BC398

P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.C. Reddy, representing B. Seetharamaiah, Counsel for the appellant-defendant and Mr. A. Anantha Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent. 2. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant herein. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No. 379 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Khammam, for recovery of money of Rs. 10,757/-, which was decreed and aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 5 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam and the learned District Judge also had dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same the present second appeal is filed. 3. Mr. B.C. Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant had pointed out that ground 8(2) of the grounds of appeal is the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The learned Counsel also, apart from pointing out this question of law, had submitted that the suit was decreed mainly on the ...

P. Venkata Appa Rao and ors. Vs. the Central Administrative Tribunal a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(5)ALD510; 2003(6)ALT821a

Bilal Nazki, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners questioning the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 682 of 1995, dt. 4.3.1998. They also questioned the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in absorbing them in skilled grade following the Dockyard Permanent Order No. 12/86, dt. 3.12.1986 instead of absorbing them in HSK, Grade-II in pursuance of clause 4 of the agreement entered into between the employer i.e., President of India, represented by the respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioners read with Docyard Permanent Order 6/85.2. The petitioners are working in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners possess I.T.I. certificates and they applied to the Naval Dockyard Apprenticeship School, Visakhapatnam in pursuance of a notification. All of them were selected for non-designated trades and after they entered into an agreement, on 4.4.1986 they were admitted to the apprenticeship training. The petitioners appeared and passed All India Trade Test conducted by the ...