Andhra Pradesh Court July 2004 Judgments

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Vision Neona

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD563; 2004(6)ALT538

G. Bikshapathy, J.1. These revision are at the instance of the defendant and as directed against the Orders passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in IA No. 104 of 2003 in OS No. 237 of 2002 and IA No. 509 of 2002 in OS No.237 of 2002.2. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce for accounts. He had estimated the amount due from the defendant at Rs. 47,04,613/-and valued the suit at Rs. 2 lakhs tentatively. The defendant filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the suit as the plaintiff did not pay the Court fee on Rs. 47,04,613/-. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and it was dismissed by an Order dated 4.8.2003. The said Order is assailed in the present civil revision petition by the defendant.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Order passed by the lower Court is wholly illegal and the lower Court failed to properly appreciate the i...

Durgavathi Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(2005)ACC536; 2004(6)ALD672

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In these appeals, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the only grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the amount of compensation, in the respective claims.2. In the claims presented before it, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded different amounts, in favour of the respective appellants, in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made thereunder. It did not grant any, interest pendente lite. However, it imposed the condition that, in case the amount awarded by it is not deposited within two months from the date of order, the compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum, from the date of the order, till the date of realization. At the stage of admission itself, learned Counsel for the appellants had advanced extensive arguments.3. Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though there is no specific provision in the Railways Act or Railway Cl...

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

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(2005)ACC324; III(2005)ACC839; 2006ACJ2589; 2004(5)ALD361

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order, dated 23-10-1998, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 11 of 1998.2. The respondents filed O.A.A.11 of 1998 claiming that their son, S. Chiranjeevi, a student of Intermediate, boarded the Secunderabad-Guntur Golkonda express at Aler Station on 27-10-1997 to go to the house of his uncle at Kazipet duly purchasing the ticket. It is stated that after he boarded the train, he slipped from it and fell down accidentally and died on the spot. They claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act') and the rules made there under.3. The appellant filed a written statement alleging that the cause of the death of the deceased was the attempt by the deceased to board the speeding train in a dangerous manner and that he died on account of his own carelessness and negligence. It is pleaded that the de...

Ganipisetty Madhu and ors. Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)452; 2004CriLJ3978

P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appellants, accused 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, had preferred the present appeal being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11-4-1997 passed in the above case.2. The version of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as hereunder.It is stated that the appellants-accused on 22-2-1993 between 9.30 pm and 10.30 pm trespassed into the house of Pothuboyina Venkateswara Rao-P.W.2 and committed rape of his wife-P.W. 1 and they had also caused hurt to P.W. 1 and hence, they were charged under Sections 451, 323 and 376(g), I.P.C. and they were found guilty and were convicted of the said offences.3. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix and P.W. 2 is the husband of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 is the co-sister-in-law of P.W. 1. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are residents of Mallavolu village and P.W. 7 is resident of Ramarajupalem. P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are the Doctors, who examined the appellants-accused. P.W. 10 is the panchayatdar for the scene...

S. Abdul Azeez Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: 1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants son, S. Abdul Hameed, aged 23 years, a graduate undergoing A level Post Graduate Diploma in Computers at Vivekananda School of Post Graduate Studies paid an amount of Rs. 250/- towards swimming pool fees to opposite party No. 1 on 7.4.2000 together with an application bearing No. 1879. Opposite party No. 2 issued an identity card according to which the validity was upto 30.4.2000 and the timings allotted to the complainants son was between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. every day. In the application form dated 7.4.2000 it was mentioned in column 9 that the applicant was a swimmer. The complainant mentions here that his son is only a beginner and has begun to learn swimming and by oversight he stated that he is a swimmer. It is submitted that on 19.4.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. he left to the swimming pool and failed to return home. The complainant and his wife were out of town and his other son infor...

B.R. Prasad and Co. Rep. by Partner Vs. the Andhra Cement Company Ltd. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD382

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 5.1.2004 in I.A. No. 1036 of 1999 in O.S. No. 633 of 1989 on the file of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,75,580/-. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.7.1991. The appellant filed I.A. No. 1036 of 1999 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that though the appellant was properly served with summons, he has not chosen to respond and it does not deserve any indulgence of the Court.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that along with I.A. No. 1036 of 1999, the appellant filed I.A. No. 727 of 1993, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in presenting the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and after extensive discussion, that I.A. was allowed through orders dated 18.10.1994. He contend...

In Re: Hyderabad Industries Limited

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(4)ALD842; 2004(4)ALT757; [2005]123CompCas458(AP); [2004]55SCL1(AP)

B. Sudershan Reddy, J 1.The petitioner in Company Petition No. 169 of 2003 is the appellant in this appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 27.4.2004 of the learned Company Judge dismissing the application filed under Section 100 read with Section 78 of the Act.2. The appellant herein filed the petition seeking the relief of confirmation of adjustment of share premium against the permanent loss in value of investment made by it in Nepal Metal Company Limited ('NMCL' for brevity) as approved by Special Resolution by the Annual General Meeting of the shareholders of the company.3. The learned Company Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the application and accordingly refused the approval/confirmation of the resolution passed by the Annual General Meeting.4. In order to appreciate as to whether the order under appeal suffers from any infirmities requiring our i...

The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. B ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)724

P.S. Narayana, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The State has preferred the present appeal against the Judgment dated 19.06.1996 made by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 244 of 1993 acquitting respondents 1 to 4/accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. The respondents/accused were charged with Section 120-B and Section 420 of IPC. It may be pertinent to note that Crime No. 30 of 1991 was registered by C.I.D. City Zone, Hyderabad under Section 120-B and 420 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as hereunder:The parties are referred to as accused hereinafter as arrayed before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the purpose of convenience.A1 and A2 were representing Pharmaceuticals Company under the name and style of M/s Synthokem Pharmaceuticals. Nabad (Karnataka) and they had conspired to make money by manufacturing spurious drugs without even establishing any ma...

B.S.K. Prasad Vs. Laxmi Vessels and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)428; II(2006)BC577; [2005]127CompCas623(AP); 2004CriLJ4079

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against one Y.V.K. Prasad (A1) and the petitioner (A2) alleging that, for a debt due to him, A-1 issued a cheque, which, on presentation for payment into the bank, was dishonoured and that statutory notice issued to A-1 and the petitioner, intimating them about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, was returned unclaimed.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Section 138 of the Act contemplates prosecution only of the drawer of the bounced cheque, and since petitioner, admittedly, did not draw the dishonoured cheque on any account maintained by him on any bank, even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, question of petitioner being liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, does not arise and so the complaint against the pe...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. K. Parvathamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006ACJ892; AIR2005AP106

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order, dated 28-9-1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench, Secunderabad, in O.A.A. No. 129 of 1997. The respondents presented the claim before the Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the death of late K. Venugopal in an untoward incident said to have taken place on the midnight of 17/19-7-1997.2. The 1st respondent is the wife and the respondents 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased-Venugopal. They presented the claim alleging that the deceased, a resident of Nandyal, went to Narsaraopet to recover certain amount lent by him to P.W. 2, and on the intervening night of 18/19-7-1997, he boarded a Train bearing No. 510 Guntur Dharmavaram passenger at Narsaraopet. According to them, he fell accidentally between Nandyal and Gaulapally railway stations and died instantly.3. The dead body of the deceased is said to have been first seen by the keyman of the ra...