Andhra Pradesh Court August 2004 Judgments

G. Sambasiva Rao Vs. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD516; 2004(6)ALT478

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner and his three sons are joint owners of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.60 cents in R.S. No. 389/2 of Mahanadu Road, Gunadala. The petitioner is utilizing the land for raising grass since 1992 by digging a bore well and obtaining electricity connection. He is aggrieved by a notice dated 6.9.2003 issued by the respondent directing him to construct a wall for the purpose of preventing stagnation of water in the land, which is allegedly causing harm to public health. The petitioner was advised to complete the construction of wall within seven days as otherwise a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) per day will be imposed. The petitioner contends that the drainage water is being let out by the Municipal Corporation without acquiring the land, and therefore, the Corporation alone should take steps for abating nuisance if any. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 18.9.2003, directed the Corporation not to take any coercive steps aga...

Katakam Yadagir and Co. and ors. Vs. Chandrugundla Surya Prakash Rao @ ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD541; 2004(6)ALT491; II(2005)BC453

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the Order dated 20-1-2003 passed in IA No. 1880 of 2002 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'CPC').2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 164 of 2001. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,92,032/-. The petitioners-defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. The Trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 paid Rs. 15,000/- on 18 8-1999, if not whether the suit is barred by limitation?2. Whether the defendants agreed to pay interest on the balance amount?3. To what relief?3. The plaintiff commenced the evidence and examined P.W.1 in part in chief and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. When the suit stood posted for fu...

Renu Devi Kedia Vs. Seetha Devi

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP180; 2004(5)ALD700; 2004(6)ALT429

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the Order dated 25-6-2004 passed in I.A. No. 797 of 2004 in O.S. No. 241 of 1998 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.2. Petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 241 of 1998. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20-3-1995 (Ex.A-2). The defendant filed written statement disputing the agreement of sale. The defendant filed I.A. No. 797 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A-2 agreement of sale and receipt dated 20-3-1995 to handwriting expert. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the Counsel for the parties and on considering the material on record, dismissed the application by Order dated 25-6-2004....

Cheruku Umapathi Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)21; I(2005)DMC482

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Cheruku Umapathi, accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 32 of 1996 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District had preferred the present criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 3.8.1998. Accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. l and both of them were tried for of fences, under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. and as far as the offence Section 306, I.P.C. is concerned, acquittal was recorded as against accused and under Section 498-A, I.P.C, acquittal was recorded as against Accused No. 2, but however accused No. 1 was found guilty of the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and accordingly conviction was recorded and accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a find of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Manimeghala is the sister of P.W.-l and daughter of P.W.-2 and she was married to accused No. 1 in November 1985 and accused No. 2 is the mother of the a...

Manasa Ready Made and Cloth Centre and Others Vs. New India Assurance ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. This is a complaint filed under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this complaint is set out as hereunder. Complainant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm dealing in ready made cloth business under the name and style of Manasa Ready Made and Cloth Centre and business premises is situated at 6/360-C and D, R.S. Road, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Cuddapah District. Complainants 2 to 4 are the partners of the said firm and complainant No. 2 is the Managing Partner of the said firm. Complainants obtained two insurance policies from opposite party No. 3 on 28.12.1998 vide Policy No. 4861120104058 and 4861120104059 covering the period from 5.1.1999 to 4.1.2000. The first policy was obtained to cover the entire stocks i.e., ready made cloth and other cloth and fixtures and fittings lying in Godown pertaining to the complainant business situated at D. No. 6/360 C and D, R.S. Road, Rajampet Town...

A. Subramanyam Naidu and ors. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Co ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD682; 2005(4)ALT684

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Batch of these Writ Petitions are filed, seeking the following reliefs:-(1) To declare the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries to the petitioners, as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,(2) To direct the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioners without reference to Section 116-C of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'Act'),(3) To declare the proceedings of the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies in prescribing the format showing the eligibility of establishment charges i.e., pay and allowances under Section 116-C (1) of the Act to be furnished by each of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, as illegal,(4) To direct the respondents to fix the salaries of the employees by taking into account 2% of the working capital without reference to 30% of the gross profit.(5) To direct the respondents to reinstate the services of certain employees of Primary Agricultural ...

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. Vs. S. Laxmana Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP51; 2004(5)ALD776; 2004(6)ALT403; 2005(1)ARBLR63(AP)

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-1-2004 passed in I.A. No. 2019 of 2002 in O.S. No. 3392 of 2002 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by which the learned X Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Section 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. The petitioner herein is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S. No. 3392 of 2002 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiff is a borrower and the defendant is a lender. The defendant financed the plaintiff for purchase of a vehicle from OPEL showroom of M/s. ASCO MOBILE (P) Ltd., under a loan agreement dated 7-9-2001. As per the terms of the loan agreement the plaintiff has to pay the loan amount in instalments and failure to pay any one of the instalments enables the lender to recall the entire amount due. Consequent on...

N. Srikanth Kumar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(6)ALD152; 2004(6)ALT415

ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner herein files this writ petition, inter alia, seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Haveli Ghanpur (H. Ghanpur vg.) in pursuance of the selection made in response to the notification, dated 17.11.1999, and to declare the Condition No. 10.2 of the G.O. Ms. No. 198, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-IV) Department, dated 5.2.1996 as illegal and void.3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in response to the notification, dated 17.11.1999, the petitioner has applied for the Fair Price Shop dealership. He claims that he is a permanent resident of Haveli Ghanpur Village, Medak District, and after the completion of Intermediate, he registered his name in the Employment Exchange in the year 1995 and later, he has completed Graduation in B.A., which is entered in the said exchange. While so, from the news item, dated 23.11.1999, published in 'Eenadu' Telug...

Amarnath JaIn and anr. Vs. K. Vijaya Kumari and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALT462

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 871 of 2001 on the file the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed this revision assailing the order dated 02.04.2004 passed in I.A. No. 374 of 2004. The respondents are plaintiffs in that suit.2. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18.07.1992. The respondents contended that the first petitioner executed the agreement of sale in favour of their brother late Eswar Lal. According to them, the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,51,000/- and out of it, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as advance on 18.07.1992 when the agreement of sale was executed. After referring to the correspondence that ensued between their deceased brother and the petitioners, the respondents expressed their readiness and willingness to fulfill their part of contract and prayed for relief of specific performance. 3. The respondents filed I.A. No. 37...

Government of A.P. and ors. Vs. V. Madhavi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD549

Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by order passed by learned Single Judge on 20th July, 2004 in WPMP No. 24296 of 2003 in W.P. No. 19369 of 2003. The impugned order reads as under:'There cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents to with-hold the salaries of the petitioners who are working as B.Ed., Assistants in the 5th respondent school since 5-10-2002.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioners who are entitled in accordance with law, pending further orders.'2. Writ petitioners-Respondents I to 4 have filed writ petition seeking a direction to declare the action of the Appellants 1 to 3 in not approving the proposal of Appellant No. 4 dated 28-9-2002 wherein approval of the appointments of writ petitioners as B.Ed., Assistants was sought, as illegal and unjust and thus sought further declaration from the Court that their appointments as B.Ed. Assistants in the High School ...