Andhra Pradesh Court February 2003 Judgments

G. Parimala Vs. Rajesh Bhatia

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALT419

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-2002 in I.A.No. 1079 of 2002 in O.S.No. 1930 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit, who is aggrieved by the order permitting the plaintiff to mark a xerox copy of a document as secondary evidence.3. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the main suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs alleged to be due from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that he was carrying on business along with the defendant, who is the proprietor of a firm. However, certain misunderstandings developed regarding the business transactions and the same were mutually settled between them in pursuance of which an undertaking dated 18-3-2001 was executed whereunder it was agreed that certain title deeds hypothecated by the plaintiff with Vijaya Bank in connection with the business shall be released ...

Cit Vs. Hyderabad Race Club Charitable Trust

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN788(AP)

C.V. Ramulu, J.As per the directions of this court dated 23-9-1986 in ITC Nos. 232, 273 and 296 of 1985 the following questions have been referred for opinion.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is an institution which satisfied the conditions of section 2(15), read with section 11 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee derived income from property held in trust and even if it is not to be treated as property held under trust it can only be treated as property held under trust as voluntary contribution given by Hyderabad Race Club ?3. Whether on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute a business and even if it were business it was not such business as would be hit by section 13(1)(bb) of th...

N.S.V. Prasad Raju Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant is a farmer and sole proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Poultries, Veerampalem village, West Godavari District which is having a capacity of 40,000 birds (layers) which was established with the financial assistance of M/s. Vysya Bank Ltd., Tadepalligudem. The complainant had insured the poultry shed, poultry feed, eggs etc., under Policy No. 116610500 06189 dated 19.9.1996 for a period of one year for Rs. 60,38,000/- by paying a premium of Rs. 18,793/-. 2. While so there was an unprecedented cyclone storm in Bay of Bengal which hit the coast in East Godavari District causing devastating loss to life and property in both the Godavari Districts. The complainants suffered extensive damage to his poultry sheds, feed and eggs apart from death of 1,000 birds. The complainant informed the opposite party Insurance Company through their banker on 7.11.1996. On 8.11.1996 the opposite party deputed one Mr. M. Venkateswara Rao who conducted preliminary...

B. Sailoo Vs. Superintendent, Osmania Hospital

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant, a driver in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called Corporation, approached the Corporation Hospital at Nalgonda as he developed pain in his right jaw. He was referred to Tarnaka Hospital (second opposite party hospital) on 6.7.1995, where his teeth was removed but the pain did not subside and hence he approached the third opposite party. He was again referred to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and later he was advised to go to Osmania General Hospital (first opposite party) so that there may not be much financial burden to the Corporation. Accordingly he was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 24.3.1995 where he was diagnosed to be having C.P. Angle Acoustic Neurosis and operated in sub-oscipital craniatory. But due to the negligence of the first opposite party hospital in not conducting proper post operative care he lost his sensitivity of right jaw and also vision in the right eye. Though the com...

Katra Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Lakshmi Nursing Home and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful complainants in O.P. No. 293/1996 on the file of District Forum, Guntur. 2. The first complainant is the husband of late Rajani Kumari and complainants 2 and 3 are his minor children. When Rajani Kumari was expecting her second baby, she approached opposite party No. 1 and consulted third opposite party, who is the Gynaecologist. She was a patient of third opposite party from 26.9.1995 to 21.11.1995 when she died in the first opposite party nursing home. Her first delivery was by caesarean section in another hospital in 1990. When she approached the third opposite party, she showed all the reports of her first delivery. She was admitted in the opposite party nursing home when pains started on 20.1 1.1995. However, no tests were conducted like blood, sugar, urine etc. nor RH typing was done. When she was admitted at 12.00 noon on 20.11.1995, as per the case sheet, her B.P. was 140/90 which came down ...

Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2003AP378; 2003(2)ALD712; 2003(3)ALT44

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The plaintiff preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2003 in I.A. No. 1092 of 2002 in I.A. No. 827 of 2002 in O.S. No. 4571 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the XVI Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Addl. Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The main suit was filed seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also obtained temporary injunction in I.A. No. 827 of 2002. Thereafter the defendants filed I.A. No. 1092 under Order 9 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.9.2002 in I.A. No. 827 of 2002 on the ground that the ex parte injunction was obtained by the plaintiff fraudulently without serving notice on them. It is further contended that the defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the year 1960 o...

M. Krishnama Naidu and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(5)ALD516; 2003(4)ALT177

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 12-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') is the primary issue in these cases.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents in proposing to transfer the assets of the Co-operative Sugar Factories in favour of private individuals on the ground that they have become sick and there is no possibility of rehabilitating the same.3. In W.P. No. 11937 of 2002, the first petitioner is the Anakapalle Co-operative Sugar Limited itself, represented by its Chairman. In all other writ petitions, the petitioners are the members and shareholders in Co-operative Sugar Factories.4. India is one of the largest producers of sugar and is in fierce competition with Brazil for the first position. The country shares about 13.25% of the world's sugar production and 41.11% of the sugar production in Asia. It contributes 2% to the National Gross Domestic Product and employs over and above forty million c...

Tatipamula Laxminarayana and ors. Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)620; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)286; 2003CriLJ2747

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellants were tried as A1 to A3 in STC No. 6 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, for contravention of Clause 7(b)(ii) of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 (for short 'the 1984 Order'} and Clause 3 of A. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order 1982 (for short the 1982 Order') read with Conditions 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the license, punishable under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court, through its judgment dated 12-9-1996, found guilty and convicted them of the said offences. For the contravention of the 1984 Order, they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default to undergo SI for a period of 6 months each. Similar sentence was awarded for the contravention of the 1982 Order and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused ...

Pullagura Renukamma Vs. Bommana Venkata Laxmamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALT442

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to transfer O.P. No. 3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Allagadda to the court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Nandyal and pass such other orders.3. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, the counsel representing the petitioner in all fairness had submitted that this transfer CMP under Section 24 of C.P.C. is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the relief prayed for is to transfer an Election O.P.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Allagadda to the court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Nandyal. But, however, the learned counsel sought permission of this Court to convert the proceeding into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. Per contra, Sri Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing respondent with all vehemence had submitted that in the counter affidavit he had taken a prel...

Rajabathula Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Yedukula Lakshmi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(5)ALT367

P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramchander Rao, counsel representing the appellants and Sri Ram Mohan, counsel representing the respondents. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the trial Court for the purpose of convenience. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S. No. 124/81 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Peddapuram for declaration of their right to take water from S. No. 310/8 tumu to their lands through S.M. Bodi, for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to restore S.M.Bodi to its original position of a width of 2 feet excluding bonds on either side and a depth of three feet, or permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the said S.M. Bodi and from obstructing the plaintiffs and their men from taking water from S. No. 310/8 tank through S.M. Channel or bodi to th...