Andhra Pradesh Court March 2005 Judgments

S. Leela Kumari Vs. L.i.C. of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainants husband late Seemakurthi Penduranga Rao took out 20 years Jeevan Surbhi policy bearing No. 681321132 with accident benefit for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the second opposite party branch which commenced on 1.5.1995 with annual premium of Rs. 48,834/- and the complainant was appointed as his nominee under the said policy. While so the insured died on 14.2.1997 due to Poems Syndrome and weakness of limbs. When the complainant submitted a claim for payment of the policy amount the first opposite party repudiated the claim on 15.2.1996 stating that her husband made incorrect statements at the time of proposal. Hence she filed the complaint claiming the sum assured together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it is admitted that the complainants husband made a proposal on 23.6.1995 for Rs. 5 lakhs under Jeevan Surabhi Plan. As per the procedure of the Corpora...

Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan Vs. Shahsun Finance Limited

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP274; 2005(2)ALD675; 2005(2)ALT503

ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The order passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') taking cognizance of the case filed by the 1st respondent against the writ petitioners is impugned in this batch of writ petitions.2. That in order to consider as to whether the Special Court committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Act, a few relevant facts leading to filing of this batch of writ petitions are required to be noticed.3. The 1st respondent herein filed land-grabbing case (for short 'L.G.C.') in the Special Court against the writ petitioners and other with a prayer to;(a) declare the respondents 1 to 21 (in the L.G.C.) as land grabbers of application schedule property i.e., all that piece of land in Survey Nos. 10 & 11 (T.S.No. 3) bearing Municipal No. 8-3-323, with sub and oblique numbers 8-3-323/1, 8-3-323/1/A, 8-3-323/2 to 12, 8-3-323/B, C, D and D1, situated in Yellareddyguda, Ameerpe...

Vignan Education Development Society Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Comm ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD770; 2005(2)ALT618; [2005(106)FLR455]; (2005)IILLJ728AP

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, functioning at Ongole, Prakasam District. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur, initiated proceedings against the petitioner, for determination of amounts payable towards contribution to the Provident Fund. A letter dated 19-9-2003 was issued to the petitioner, directing it to furnish information in Form 5-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The matter was not pursued with any vigor for some time. On behalf of the petitioner, a reply was submitted on 20-1-2005, stating that it is not covered by the provisions of the Act. The first respondent issued a warrant of arrest to the petitioner, and the same was sought to be enforced by the third respondent, the Station House Officer, Doddavarappadu, Prakasam District. The petitioner challenges the same.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the warrant of arrest, dated 24-...

Bheri Nageswara Rao Vs. Mavuri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD885; 2005(3)ALT574

G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order passed by the learned District Judge, East Godavari District in LA. No.1754 of 2004 in O.S, No.86 of 2003, dated 13-9-2004.2. Petitioner is the third party. He filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to implead himself as 3rd defendant in the suit. Suit O.S. No.86 of 2003 was filed by the Respondent Nos.l to 4 herein against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and sought for mining lease to exploit the plaint schedule property for the purpose of extracting granites slabs. As there was dispute between the plaintiff and the mines department, they filed a suit in O.S. No.86 of 2003 seeking declaration that the refusal of the defendants to grant licence in favour of the 4th plaintiff to excavate the land as illegal and sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant lease, licence or permit in favour of 4th plaintiff to exploit t...

K. Umavathamma and ors. Vs. G. Venkata Chalapathi and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: III(2005)ACC66; 2006ACJ1764; 2005(3)ALD10; 2005(3)ALT91

ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Being aggrieved of not passing any order in I.A. No. 1327 of 2003 filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under 'No fault liability' in O.P. No. 283 of 2003 filed under Sections 140 and 166 of M.V. Act read with Rule 455 of the A.P. M.V. Rules, 1989, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur, the claimants preferred this civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this civil revision petition are that the husband of the first petitioner herein and the father of other petitioners i.e., K.B. Venkata Sivanna, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 6-1-2002 at about 3:00 p.m., near Yerraguntapalli (Tanakal) on Kadiri-Madanapalli Road. Claiming compensation, the petitioners herein filed O.P. No. 283 of 2003 under Sections 140 and 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P M.V. Rules, 1989, claiming compensatio...

Musunuru Rajani Vs. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD87; 2005(4)ALT11

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.Petitioner was accorded permission on 14.5.2004, to undertake construction in his premises in R.S. No. 362/ 2C1 of Gunadala Village, within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. When the construction was in progress, the respondent issued a notice dated 5.7.2004, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act') and Sections 42 and 43 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, stating that the construction being undertaken is contrary to the sanctioned plan and G.O. Ms No. 423, Municipal Administration, dated 31.7.1998. The petitioner was directed to explain as to why action shall not be taken under the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner claims to have submitted an explanation dated 14.9.2004.2. The respondent issued a notice dated 1.3.2005, under Section 636 of the Act, directing the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized structures raised by him, within twenty four hours from the receipt of notice...

Mattaparthi Satyanarayana Vs. Bhavana Seshagiri Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD632; 2005(3)ALT106

G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code calling in question the Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No. 7 of 1990 in I.P.No. 4 of 1959, dated: 16-4-2002.2. Petitioner is the respondent in the Interlocutory Application. It is necessary to refer to certain past events so as to appreciate the matter in proper perspective. One Rayapudi Jwala Narasimham was adjudged as insolvent by an Order passed by the Court in I.P.No. 4 of 1959, dated 15-11-1960. In pursuance of the Order in the insolvency proceedings, the estate of said Narasimham became vested in the Official Receiver. Consequently, some of the assets of the insolvent were brought to sale and one such property was sold having an extent of Ac.2-12 cents in S.No. 100/1-B in Mungaga village in the auction conducted by the official receiver on 21-6-1979 for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The respondent purchased the said property. Thereafter, official receiver execut...

Jonnavaram Ibrahim and anr. Vs. Uppaluru Jahara Bi (Died) Per Lrs.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD539; 2005(3)ALT545

ORDERT.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The revision petitioners, who are defendants in the suit seek to assail the docket order dated 26-11-2002 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur in I.A.No. 1360 of 2000 in O.S.No. 499 of 1979.2. The petition in I.A.No. 1360 of 2000 was filed for passing final decree and for that purpose, for appointing a Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the directions contained in the preliminary decree. That was resisted by the respondents therein, who are the revision petitioners herein by filing a counter. One of the grounds taken inter alia in the counter is limitation. According to the respondents, the preliminary decree having been passed on 4-10-1988, as per Article 137 of Schedule-I of Limitation Act, the three years period of limitation expired by 4-10-1991 and therefore, the petition in I.A.No. 1360 of 2000 was clearly barred by limitation.3. After having heard either side, under the impugned docket ...

Sangu Brahmam and ors. Vs. Station House Officer and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(3)ALD772; 2006(2)ALT322

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the inaction of the first respondent in not according necessary help to the petitioners, to protect their possession over an extent of Ac. 12-32 cents of land in various survey numbers of Kasavarigudem Village, H/o. Kalvapalli Village, Garidepalli Mandal of Nalgonda District, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction is sought to the first respondent for extension of necessary help to the petitioners.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners, or their predecessors in title as the case may be, were granted patta certificates, in respect of the land referred to above, by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, through order dated 23-3-1967. When the Respondents 2 to 5 tried to interfere with their possession, suits in OS Nos.45 and 46 of 1987 were filed in the Court of Se...

Jambula Ravinder Reddy Vs. Jambula Raghunandan Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(4)ALT13

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ramanand representing Sri Ravi Prasad, the counsel for the petitioner-respondent No. 4 and Sri Pulla Reddy, Sri Vasudeva Reddy, and Sri Prabhakar Reddy appearing for the respondents in the application.2. The petitioner-respondent No. 4 moved the present application praying for appointment of Receiver or Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the plaint schedule property for the purpose of management and to deposit proceeds to the credit of O.S. No. 442 of 1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District and pass such other suitable orders.3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner would submit that even as per the preliminary decree, the petitioner-respondent No. 4 is entitled to half share in 1/3rd share of the 1st respondent and thus the petitioner is entitled to 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel also would submit that despite direction not to alienate, certain alienations had been mad...