Andhra Pradesh Court October 2003 Judgments

Surender Singh Bajaj Vs. Harmeet Singh Sethi and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALD91; 2004(1)ALT430; 2004(1)ARBLR436(AP)

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicant has filed this application praying for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the applicant and the respondents.2. The applicant claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.2.02 guntas and Ac.2.24 guntas of land, comprised in Sy.Nos. 396 and 399 respectively of Medchal Taluk, Attavalli Village, Ranga Reddy District, benami in the names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, under registered sale deeds. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are closely related to the applicant, Respondent No. 2 being his sister and Respondent No. 1 being the daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2. In order to safeguard the interest of the applicant, an agreement acknowledging the real ownership of the property was executed by the parties on 6-2-1990 which according to the applicant reveals the real ownership of the applicant and the intention of the parties about t...

A.S.S.R. Krishna Rao Vs. Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Legislative Affai ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)232; 2004(1)ALT465

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is an advocate statedly practising in criminal courts. He was initially appointed as Assistant public prosecutor Grade II in the year 1958 and promoted to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I. In both these posts he worked for about a quarter century. He demitted the office of Assistant public Prosecutor and took up private practice. While so he was also appointed as Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecutions of important cases of Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.C.D) in Circar district. He claims to have conducted several trials as Special Public Prosecutor, besides assisting various crime police stations. Subsequently also, he was appointed Special public Prosecutor for Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Cell, the latest appointment being vide G.O. Rt. No. 191 Law (LA&J; courts.A-2) Department, dated 15-2-2001 for a period of two years,- and the said period expired on 5-3-2003.2. After expiry of the ...

Pervalipalem Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(6)ALD865; 2004(3)ALT736

ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Writ Petition No. 20556 of 1999 was filed by the in-charge Sarpanch Peravalipalem, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District as per the resolution of the Gram Panchayat adopted for the purpose. Writ Petition No. 21494 of 1999 was filed by some of the voters of the same Gram Panchayat seeking a declaration that the 4th respondent herein is not entitled to act as the Sarpanch of Peravalipalem Gram Panchayat by issuance of writ of mandamus. As the issue raised in both these writ petitions being the same, they can be disposed of by a common order.2. The question that falls for consideration in these two writ petitions would be when two candidates contested for (he office of Sarpanch and the candidate elected ultimately found to be disqualified to contest for the office of Sarpanch, whether the Court is bound to declare the other candidate in the fray as Sarpanch of the village automatically under Rule 13 of A.P. Panchayat (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mand...

Motichand JaIn Vs. M. Jaikumar and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2004AP136; 2004(1)ALD228; 2004(1)ALT250

T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (TCSR, J), the matter has come up before us for adjudication.2. It is expedient to look at the factual matrix at the threshold for brevity and better understanding of the matter. A suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale was filed in O.S. No. 28 of 1980 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The property which is the subject-matter of the suit was valued at Rs. 45,000/- for the purposes of Court fee and Court jurisdiction. Eventually, the suit ended in dismissal at the culmination of the trial by the judgment dated 31.12.1990. During the pendency of the suit, the A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 (for brevity 'the Act 30/89') raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts had been passed and came into effect from 2.12.1989 onwards. Under the said Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court/Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to...

M. Sowbhagyamma (Died) and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALD287

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, acquired an extent of Ac.14-16 guntas of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 63, 64, 66/U, 66/5, 66/7, 66/9, 66/ 12, 66/14, 67 and 68 of Mansodrabad Village, Hyderabad East, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to several persons, for the purpose of formation of Inner Ring Road from Tarnaka to Uppal Junction to join National Highway No. 9. The petitioners herein own three plots bearing Nos. 39, 49 and 50 in an extent of 1100 Sq. yds., situated in Sy.No. 64. Even before issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 18-5-1978. the Land Acquisition Officer, took possession of the acquired land on 6-11-1977. Thereafter, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 5-6-1978 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was made on 14-6-1979. When proceedings under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were initiated and notices dated 17-9-1979 issued...

Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao and anr. Vs. Nizams Sugars Limited

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALD387

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioners herein, the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 64 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District had filed an application LA. No. 254 of 2003 under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for leave for reception of documents filed along with the application LA. No. 118 of 2003. The application I.A. No. 118 of 2003 was filed praying for granting permission to file list of documents 1 to 6 specified in the said application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge had dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same both these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CRP No. 2990 of 2003 is preferred as against the order made in LA. No. 254 of 2003 dated 8.5.2003 while CRP No. 2987 of 2003 is preferred as against the order made in IA No. 118 of 2003 dated 8.5.2003.2. Sri E....

D. Beemeswara Rao Vs. Secretary, Hyderabad Race Club

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. Late Subrahmanyeswara Rao, hereinafter called the deceased is the brother of the complainant and was working as Assistant Superintendent in Hyderabad Race Club. He approached the dispensary of the first opposite party for nail prick in toe of his right leg on 27.12.1996, whereupon the O.P.-1 administered a T.T. injection. However by 28.12.1996 he presented before the first opposite party dispensary with severe pain and swelling at the site of injection of the left hand. The doctor gave him two tablets to subside the pain, but pain did not subside and during the night of 29.12.1996 the deceased complained of breathlessness and sleeplessness and got himself admitted in the second opposite party nursing home at about 2.00 a.m. on 30.12.1996. The duty doctor prescribed some medicines and the deceased was kept in the nursing home till 6.00 p.m. on that day. At that time the resident doctor advised the patient to go to speciality hospital. Accordingly, the...

Avula Raghuramaiah Vs. Pallempaati Seetamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(6)ALD860

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The civil revision petition was admitted on 18-7-2003. But, however in C.M.P. No. 15398 of 2003 stay was rejected. The learned Counsel Sri D.S.N.V. Prasad Babu representing Miss. G. Manjula learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though in similar matters stay had been granted, in this matter stay had been rejected.2. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had opposed the matter and both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments. In view of the same, with the consent of both the Counsel, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and the same is being disposed of.3. The present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioner-2nd respondent-petitioner in IA No. 1234 of 2002 in R.C.C. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tenali. The said application was filed under Order 18 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Pro...

The Chief Engineer Representing the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALT534

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. We have elaborately heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri N. Subba Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Sri Vilas V. Afzalpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.2. The second respondent-Associated Engineering Enterprises filed a complaint against the petitioners herein before the Upa-Lokayukta complaining that they, without any justification whatsoever, denied the payments that were legitimately due to it for the work done by it relating to widening of bridge near Fever Hospital. It was urged that there is an abnormal delay in settlement of claims and that there was balance of Rs.14.50 lakhs due to the second respondent-firm. The second respondent-firm claimed various amounts under various heads and sought for a direction from Upa- Lokayukta as against the petitioners herein to pay the amounts.3. The Upa-Lokayukta having received the...

A.V. Janaki Amma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALD19

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1.The fourth petitioner, Major P. Gopalakrishna, is father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. First petitioner is mother-in-law of fourth petitioner. One Smt. Savithri is wife of fourth petitioner and mother of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. First petitioner is mother of Savithri Savithri died due to medical negligence of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Therefore, present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not properly conducting operation and not taking proper care as illegal, improper and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakhs only) to petitioners and also direct first respondent to take appropriate action as per law against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The fourth petitioner at the relevant time was serving Indian Army in the Organization of Chief Engineer, R&D.; He is a Commissioned Officer. Smt. Savithri was admitted to Military Hospital, Secunderabad, under...