Andhra Pradesh Court June 2005 Judgments

Gangadhar Apartments Flat Owners Association Vs. Srirama Promoters and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Jagannadham Naidu, Member: 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-1, Hyderabad in O.P. No. 1062/95 dated 5.8.2002 this appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. The facts leading to filing this appeal are set out as hereunder. 4. The opposite party No. 1 is a registered partnership firm rep. by its partner S.V. Krishna Rao. It entered into separate agreement to construct separate residential flats within 18 months from the date of agreement. Subsequently the opposite party No. 1 executed deed of authorization in favour of the opposite party No. 5 to collect the balance amount from the members of the apartment flat owners to complete the entire construction work. The opposite party No. 5 entered into separate performance agreement dated 10.9.1994 with 8 members of the complainant association and to complete the construction of separate flats within 8 months from the date of the agreement....

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Gurram Subba Rao and an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(4)ALD828; 2005(5)ALT56

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This batch of revision is filed by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure < Corporation Limited, aggrieved by the individual orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, rejecting the calculation memo filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, (for short 'the LAO').2. Through a notification dated 5-1-1985, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), an extent of Ac. 100.00, situated in Tirumalgiri Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner- Corporation. Even before the award was passed, certain tentative amount of compensation was paid to the land-owners under Section 17(3A)(b) of the Act. After completing the formalities, award was passed by the LAO on 25-9-1986, determining the market value, solatium and interest. He divided the lands into two categories and determined the compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.25,000/-, per acre, respectively. He paid the compensation, duly taking...

A. Narasimha (Died) Per L.R. Vs. A. Krishna and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD9; 2005(4)ALT784

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This is a revision filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). The subject-matter relates to an application under Section 32 of the Act, for restoration of possession filed by one of the successors of protected tenant.2. The deceased 1st petitioner, A. Narasimha, filed an application under Section 32 of the Act, initially, before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheruvu, the 10th respondent, for restoration of possession of an extent of Ac. 1.35 gts., of land in Sy.No.701 (old Sy.No.916), of Ameenpur village. On an objection raised by respondents 6 and 7, who were impleaded therein, the proceedings were directed to be dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, the 9th respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings before the 9th respondent, the original petitioner died and the 2nd petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative.3. It was alleged th...

Hindustan Cables Ltd. Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-additiona ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD374; 2005(4)ALT794

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 8951 of 1995 is filed by M/s. Hindustan Cables Limited, represented by its Chief General Manager, Hyderabad against the Award, dated 07-12-1994, in I.D. No. 414 of 1993 of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad.2. W.P. No. 26587 of 1995 is filed by the workman challenging the same Award in I.D. No. 414 of 1993, dated 07-12-1994, to the extent of not being granted back-wages while seeking consequential direction to the management to pay back-wages from the date of removal till the date of the Award.3. Since both the writ petitions are filed against the same award in I.D. No. 414 of 1993, dated 07-12-1994, they are being disposed of by a common order.4. The facts relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions are that:The petitioner in W.P. No. 26587 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as workman) was working as Security Guard in M/s. Hindustan Cables Limited (hereinafter referred to as employer). The workman was al...

S.V. Anand Vs. S.R.K. Murthy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD108; 2005(5)ALT586

A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. A.S. Nos. 1150 and 3491 of 1990 are preferred by the defendant and plaintiff respectively against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in O.S. No. 37 of 1985 (O.S. No. 138 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Penukonda), decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession and dismissing the claim for recovery of Rs. 16,200/- towards rent of the building and for costs of the suit. Against the preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to for partition and separate possession of his 11/20th share defendant preferred A.S. No. 1150 of 1990; whereas against that part of the decree where the claim for recovery of rents of Rs. 16,200/- as damages for use and occupation in respect of suit premises was dismissed plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 3491 of 1990.3. The ple...

D. Anil Kumar Vs. Shiva Balak

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD114

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ugranarsimha, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri S. Balchand, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act No. 15 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as against an order made in I.A. No. 640 of 2004 in R.A. No. 87 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 3-12-2004. the said application was moved by the revision petitioner herein, the respondent in R.A. No. 87 of 2003 - Land-lord - under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, LA. No. 640 of 2004 requesting the Court to direct the appellant in R.A. No. 87 of 2003 - tenant - to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises bearing No. 21-5-13/1, Charmahal, Opposite: City College, Hyderabad to the landlord for construction of a new building demolishing the old structures. Several fact...

Mosa Tata Rao Vs. Kadiyala Satyavathi and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD84

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ram Gopal, Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Smt. Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, Counsel representing the 1st respondent.2 The 1st respondent, Kadiyala Satyavathi, hereinafter referred to as 'landlady' filed R.C.C. No. 3/2001 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada praying for eviction of the tenant/Revision petitioner herein/1st respondent in the R.C.C. on the ground of wilful default and on yet another ground of personal requirement. The 2nd respondent herein who is also the 2nd respondent in the aforesaid R.C.C. is the son of the landlady who is added as a proforma party. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of PW-1, RW-1 and RW-2, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 and ordered eviction on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 1/2002 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the learned Judge confirm...

V. Pranav Kumar Vs. V. Sulekha @ Payal and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD51; I(2006)DMC528

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 2-3-2005, passed by the Court of Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in an application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.2. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. Respondents 1 to 3 (for short 'the respondents') filed O.P. for maintenance against the petitioner. They alleged that the petitioner herein started harassing the 1st respondent in various methods and pressurized her to get a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-from her parents. It is also alleged that he has physically assaulted and ill-treated her. Reference was made to submission of complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the Hon'ble XXII M.M.-cum-Mahila Court at Nampally, Hyderabad and filing of O.P.No. 35 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged that th...

Apsrtc and Others Vs. V.C. Reddappa Reddy and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Chittoor in CD No. 79 of 2004 dated 18.11.2004, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder. 4. The opposite party Road Transport Corporation has introduced a scheme APSRTC Jubilee Hi-Tech ticket for Rs. 675 to its passengers to travel anywhere within Andhra Pradesh State in its all types of services except AC and AC sleeper coach buses for a period of seven days. Attracted by the aforementioned scheme the complainants have purchased two tickets bearing Nos. 15672 and 15673 on 3.10.2003 which are valid up to 24th hour of 9.10.2003 to have their trip to Hyderabad, Basara and Vijayawada. The complainants started their journey on the evening of 3.10.2003 from Chittoor to Hyderabad. From Hyderabad they went to Basara through Nizamabad on 6.10.2003 morning and returned on...

Katta Prabhakar Vs. Chaitanya Mahila Kalashala and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. When children begin to take their lives over examinations then something is very seriously wrong with the educational system today. The examinations were intended to test their aptitude and help them to make career of their choice. Unfortunately the present day examinations have become something else altogether. Scholastic aptitude has become a matter of life and death. The whole system has lost its objectivity. Stressed over the intense competition and high cut-off percentage students are driven to enroll themselves in coaching institutions which grind them mercilessly and make them write number of examinations before they take their Board examinations. The focus is on memory instead of understanding and thinking capability. The enormaus stress levels faced by the students who appear in the entrance examinations are beyond description. They are shut off from friends and normal leisure resulting in depression. The stress and strain of these coaching ...