Andhra Pradesh Court December 2004 Judgments

K.S. Ramachander Rao Vs. State of A.P. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD572; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)498

G. Biskhapathy, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 2188 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, filed Criminal Petition No. 2332 of 2002 to quash the proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), on the ground that the complaint against him, presented by the General Power of Attorney of the payee of the cheque issued by him, which was dishonoured, is not maintainable in view of S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta, (DB). When the said petition came up for hearing before one of us (C.Y. Somayajulu, J.), since Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, and Section 183 of Contract Act, 1872, recognizing the principle Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se were not considered while rendering the said decision, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the ratio in that decision in view of those provisions, and directed the Registry to post the case before an appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the H...

K. Ramachandra Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecuto ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALT607; III(2005)BC111; 2005(2)CTC417; [2005(3)JCR390(AP)]

ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. The accused in C.C.No. 2188 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, filed Criminal Petition No. 2332 of 2002 to quash the proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), on the ground that the complaint against him, presented by the General Power of Attorney of the payee of the cheque issued by him, which was dishonoured, is not maintainable in view of S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta, 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 497 = 2002 Crl.L.J. 2621 (A.P.)(D.B.). When the said petition came up for hearing before one of us (C.Y. Somayajulu, J.), since Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, and Section 183 of Contract Act, 1872, recognizing the principle QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE were not considered while rendering the said decision, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the ratio in that decision in view of those provisions, and directed the Registry to post the case befor...

Mehar Padma Agencies Vs. National Insurance Co. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. Complainant is the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam in C.D. No. 84/2002, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder: The complainant has approached the District Forum seeking for a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards insurance claim and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and costs of the complaint. 3. The complainant is a pharmaceutical distributor doing business of selling medicines in wholesale and took an insurance policy from the opposite party. It is his case that a burglary took place in his shop and claimed insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. First opposite party filed counter contending that the complainant failed to establish the theft by submitting documents to substantiate his claim. He filed the complaint only t...

Anku Ramulu, S/O Linganna Vs. the Joint Collector,

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD806

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition being aggrieved of cancellation of the allotment of the house site patta certificates relating to the building No.24 in Ekachakreswara Nagar Colony, Chakki Turfa Sivar, Bodhan taluq, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.2. Sri Serla Pandari the learned counsel representing the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Court to the show cause notice and would contend that beneficiary is the illitam son-in-law and his mother-in-law is having agricultural lands and other aspects were not specified in the said show-cause notice. The learned Counsel also would submit that for the purpose of cancellation, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer also had been relied upon which was not furnished to the petitioner. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court that the authorities had not properly applied their mind and the very fact that the cyclostyle orders had been passed would go to show that these orde...

Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the General Manager, S.C. Railway Vs. St ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD403; 2005(3)ALT15

V. Eswaraiah, J.1. The appellant herein is the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The respondent is a Steel Authority of India Limited (for short 'the SAIL').2. The application filed by the respondent in O.A.No.234 of 1991, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, for payment of compensation of Rs.94,775/- from the Railway Authorities towards the cost of the short delivery of 22.300 Metric Tons of Pig Iron Ingots priced at the rate of Rs.4,250/- per ton, was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, this CMA is filed.3. It is the case of the respondent before the Tribunal that on 21/22.09.1990 in invoice No.W-660 the SAIL loaded the consignment of 58.700 Mts. of pig iron ingots from the Bhilai Steel Plant, Bokaro to Moula Ali, Hyderabad, vide railway receipt No.C-643947. It is stated that the value of the goods to be transported is Rs.2,49,475/-, which is calculated at the rate of Rs.4,250/- per Metr...

V.V. Subba Rao, S/O Venkatramaiah and Gunupaty Guruswamy Reddy, S/O Ob ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD94; 2005(2)ALT624

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 28.09.2004, where under the first respondent directed the petitioners to produce bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the seized stocks, namely Rs.4,12,718/-, as a condition precedent, for releasing the same.2. The second respondent, District Supply Officer, visited the rice mill being run by the petitioners, on 6.6.2004. He effected seizure of 657 quintals of paddy, 282 quintals of rice, 60 quintals of broken rice and another quantity of 171.75 quintals of rice said to be meant for Public Distribution System. The allegation for seizure was that the quantities of rice were found in loose heaps, the petitioners purchased the rice meant for Public Distribution System/Food For Work, and were purchasing the paddy, without paying the minimum support price to the farmers. When the petitioners approached the first respondent, for release of the stocks, he passed an order dated 13.08.2004, directing release, on furnishin...

Mahboob Khan Vs. Mohd. Khaja and 4 ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD839; 2005(2)ALT308

ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the III Additional District Judge (FTC), Nirmal dated 18-11-2002 in A.S.No.50 of 2002 confirming the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa dated 31-1-2001 passed in O.S.No.82 of 1997 ordering return of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to a dispute of wakf property and that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 1997. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of a graveyard situated in S.No.330/2 admeasuring 28 guntas. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was originally a part of bigger extent belonging to his paternal grandfather Sri Abdullah Khan. The said Abdullah Khan donated one acre land towards a Mosque. Some extent was acquired for ...

K.C. Sambasiva Rao S/O. Nagabhushanam Vs. the Regional Manager, Golcon ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALT372; [2005(105)FLR1098]

ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Corporation. He was initially selected as a Comptist through Order P4/502 (6)/88-GR dt.12-6-1989. The first respondent on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee in the direct recruitment quota appointed him as a Junior Clerk (Purchases). He was posted as an Assistant Store Keeper. He was kept under probation for a period of one year as Junior Clerk (Purchases) w.e.f. 12-6-1989 and was required to pass departmental test for declaration of probation in not more than two chances. It was further mentioned in the order that failure to pass test will render his services liable for termination. The petitioner contends that though he was shown as a Clerk (Purchases), he was discharging the duties of an Assistant Store Keeper in the Materials Department. He was required along with other staff members to attend a probation test on 8- 7-1990. He submitted a representation on 7-7-1990 inform...

Durgempudi Venkata Raghava Vs. Pass Port Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD710; 2005(1)ALT751

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Mr. A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Standing Counsel for Central Government-respondent.2. This writ petition is filed for a writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein to rectify the mistake committed in mentioning the date of birth of petitioner as 10-8-1968 instead of 10-8-1969 in the Passport No. M.729849, dated 10-11-1992 at Hyderabad, and direct the respondent to enter the date of birth of the petitioner as 10-8-1969 in accordance with the date of birth as entered in his S.S.C. certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, A.P., Hyderabad and to pass suitable orders.3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner passed the Computer Science Engineering in the month of November, 1991. In view of the fact that the petitioner being unemployed and on the advise of his parents t...

Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. Vs. N. Rajagopal and Co. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD636; 2005(4)ALT405

C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of the amount sent by it to the defendants as advance for purchase of machinery, consequent on the breach of contract allegedly committed by the defendants. The case, in brief, of the appellant is that Respondents 2 to 5 who are partners of the first respondent agreed to supply W.S.T. Draftings for eleven ring spinning frames of 440 spindles each within the time stipulated and received the entire sale consideration of Rs. l,40,937-50Ps. by way of telegraphic transfer but had supplied only two ring frames of 440 spindles each in April 1979. After prolonged correspondence they supplied two more ring frames consisting of 692 spindles, instead of 880 spindles in July 1979 and one poor and inferior quality set of 440 spindles in November 1979 and failed to supply the balance quantity in spite of repeated demands and so it was obliged to purchase the remaining quantity from another supplier. So responde...