Andhra Pradesh Court August 2005 Judgments

K. Hansraj (Died) by Lrs. Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP502; 2005(6)ALD33

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of a Common Judgment in A.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1997, on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeals, in turn, arose out of a common judgment rendered by the Court of 1 Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. No. 1361 of 1991 and 17 of 1992. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suits and the respondent is common to both the suits.2. The appellants filed the suits for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to them, they purchased an extent of 660 sq.yards of land each in Sy. No. 786/1 to 5 of Mettuguda Revenue Village through sale deeds, dated 6-8-1984 and 19-1-1985, from the original owners. It was stated that the land of their vendors in various survey numbers admeasuring an extent of Ac. 33.03 gts was acquired by the respondent, for the purpose of constructing quarters and in the process, claim is being made to the plots purchased by the appellants. They ...

Pakeer Pitchi Reddy and ors. Vs. Pakeer Papi Reddy and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD37; 2006(1)ALT626

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. l of 1996, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, through which, the judgment and decree, of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, in O.S. No. 1 139 of 1991, was reversed. The appellants are the defendants in the suit. Their father and the 1st respondent are brothers, and the 2nd respondent is the son of the 1st respondent.2. The father of the appellants, the 1st respondent and their two other brothers, constituted a Hindu Joint Family. They partitioned their lands about 30 years prior to the filing of the suit. One item of the landed property held by the joint family, was the land in Sy. No. 63, admeasuring Ac.4.20 guntas, situated at Parapallygudem, Nalgonda, and it abutted the road on the northern side. In the partition, one acre, immediately abutting the road, and Ac.2.20 guntas, on the southern side, was allotted to the father of the appellants. A piece of o...

Quazi Mohd. NajmuddIn HussaIn Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP464; 2005(6)ALD1; 2005(6)ALT663

Bilal Nazki, A.C.J.1. In Writ Petition No. 22788 of 1999, appointment of 4th respondent as Kazi by the Government, has been challenged by the writ petitioner. When the case came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 3.2.2000 in connection with a vacate stay petition filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition, the Court, while passing orders in W.V.M.P. No. 3389 of 1999, also made these observations:'... Besides these issues, in this writ petition some more questions of public importance can be addressed to. This Court prima facie believes that this Act could be a source of exploitation of the poor and innocent people of the State. Section 4 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that Kazi has no powers whatsoever neither judicial nor administrative. This section makes it also clear that any performance or religious ceremony of Muslims shall not be rendered illegal in the absence of a Kazi. Therefore, the question which hunts the Court is what is the necessity for appoin...

D. Sambasiva Rao Chowdary Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD506

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-9-2004 in I.A. No. 287 of 2004 in O.S. No. 37 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration of title by virtue of adverse possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents herein are the defendants 1 to 4 respectively in the suit.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants as they were arrayed in the plaint.4. It is not in dispute that the defendants 2 and 3 (the respondents 2 and 3 herein) were set ex parte, and the summons could not be served on the defendant No. 4 for want of correct address. So far as the 1st defendant (respondent No. 1 herein) is concerned, though summons were served and the Counsel entered appearance, since the written statement was not filed, by order dated 14-8-2003 the right to file written stateme...

Kosuru Bhaskar and anr. Vs. Kosuru Ramachandraiah and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD35

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since these two civil revision petitions are inter connected they are being disposed of by a common order.2. CRP No. 1778 of 2005 arises out of I.A. No. 481 of 2004 in A.S.No. 53 of 2003 and C.R.P.No. 1796 of 2005 arises out of I.A. No. 480 of 2004 in A.S.No. 95 of 2003 on the tile of the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. A.S. No. 53 of 2003 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 319 of 1995 and A.S.No. 95 of 2003 is filed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 317 of 1995. O.S. No. 319 of 1995 is filed by M. Tirupathi Swami and four others seeking an injunction restraining Kosuru Ramachandraiah, Govindaiah and Kamalamma from interfering with their peaceful possession of the properties specified in the schedule appended to the plaint, alleging that they had purchased the said property from Kosuru Ramachandraiah for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 20-6-1980 and were put in possession th...

V.V. Mahendranath Vs. Dy. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Offic ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD311; 2006(3)ALT562; (2006)IILLJ715AP

ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. Challenging the action of the 1st respondent in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner by order dated 30.1.2001 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 17.5.2001, the present writ petition is filed.2. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent issued a charge-sheet alleging that he has been absented from duties unauthorisedly, for which he submitted explanation in which he also requested the authority to view the matter under Clause 19.12(e) of the Bipartite settlement. According to the said clause, enquiry need not be held if the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in reply to the show-cause notice. The said plea was not considered and the 1st respondent appointed Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were fully established. The Enquiry Officer did not examine any officer on the management side. Basing on the above report th...

Management of State Bank of India Rep. by Its Regional Manager Vs. Ind ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(1)ALT39

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Are Labour Courts/Tribunals empowered to declare disciplinary action taken against a workman ab initio void and, without examining the matter further, set aside the punishment imposed on such a workman by his employer, solely on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished and an opportunity to submit his objections thereto has been denied to the delinquent workman? This is the question which falls for consideration in this writ petition.2. The facts, to the extent necessary, are that the Government of India, vide proceedings dated 10-7-1991, referred the following dispute between the management of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') and their workmen to the Industrial Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'), for adjudication:Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments by way of cancellation wit...

Apgli, Govt. of A.P. and Others Vs. Tirumella Vijayalakshmi and Anothe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. Opposite parties 1 to 5 are the appellants. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum-I, East Godavari at Kakinada in C.D. No. 31/2001 dated 19.4.2005 the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder: 4. The complainants husband worked as Draughtsman, Grade-III at Ganapavaram in Prakasam District. He underwent some transfers and later promoted as Draughtsman, Grade-II. The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced Life Insurance Scheme and a premium of Rs. 16 was deducted from his salary every month and he submitted his proposal for insurance on his life in the prescribed form and policy bearing No. 427084(A) showing 1.2.1980 as the date of commencement of risk and 30.6.2005 as date of maturity and assured sum was Rs. 4,980. The Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the sum assured from time-to-time and ultimately the sum as...

B.D. Bhasker Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD825; 2005(5)ALT407

ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in removing the petitioner from service by proceedings No. X/P.227/153/89-17 dated 25-6-1990 as confirmed by the appellate authority-first respondent in proceedings No. X/P.227/1/Appeal (mjp) 90/22 dated 31-12-1990 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on 18-11-1979 and he had very good track record of service and he did not give any scope for any complaint from any corner. While so, on 24-10-1989, the petitioner was placed under suspension and on 23-11-1989, he was issued with a charge sheet alleging that in the course of investigation in Crime No. 27/89, it was revealed that the petitioner also participated along with criminals in the commission of ...

Dr. Dilip Kumar Renapurkar Vs. Vivek Pandav and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALT581

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Both the revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 993 of 1996, on the file of the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Originally, the suit was filed against respondents 4 to 8 herein, as defendants 1 to 5, for the relief of partition. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 herein got themselves impleaded, as defendants 6 to 8, by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. At a later point of time, respondents 1 to3 filed I.A.No. 1676 of 2002, for transposing them as plaintiffs 2 to 4. The trial court allowed the same, through its order, dated 28-3-2003. C.R.P.No. 5660 of 2003 is filed against it.2. Consequent upon the respondents 1 to 3 being transposed as plaintiffs, they filed I.A.No. 1564 of 2003, seeking amendment of the plaint, on certain aspects. It was resisted by the petitioner herein. The trial court allowed the I.A., through order dated 2-7-2004. C.R.P.No. 5372 of 2004 arises out of it.3. Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao,...