Andhra Pradesh Court December 2006 Judgments

K. Swarna Kumari Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(2)ALD614; 2007(2)ALT437

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Before we deal with the case, it will be necessary to make reference to certain developments, which have taken place during the pendency of this case, relating to the questions involved in this case. This writ petition has been filed in the year 1999. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by G.O. Ms. No. 87, dated 28.5.1999. One of the admitted facts was that the enquiry was conducted by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Rules'). These 1963 Rules were not in force when the enquiry was initiated. On 5.12.1997, a Circular was issued by the High Court, adopting Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Rules'). Additional charges were framed against the petitioner by proceedings dated 6.1.1998. When the matter came up before a Division Bench compri...

Kareem HussaIn (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Veeranki Rama Krishna Prasad (Died ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(2)ALD808; 2007(2)ALT457

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-08-2004 passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2000 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada confirming the order dated 15-09-200 passed in R.C.C. No. 1 of 1999 by the Rent Controller - cum - Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.2. The petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords in respect of the premises bearing No. 11-100-1, situated at Vuyyuru, Krishna District. The first respondent herein filed eviction petition in R.C.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram against the first petitioner herein seeking his eviction from the aforesaid premises on the grounds of wilful default and personal occupation under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Rent Controller, by order dated 15-09-2000, allowed the evic...

Verriboyina Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Nakkala Venkayamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ALD647

G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by second defendant in O.S. No. 538 of 1974 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bapatla. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction by contending that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties held that the plaintiff failed to prove the possession as on the date of the suit and dismissed the suit. When an appeal is preferred, the plaintiff amended the plaint by converting the suit for possession and in pursuance of the same, the appellate Court remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. After fresh evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie title and possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 41 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, ...

Pavan Chit Funds Private Limited Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpora ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(4)ALT46; [2007(114)FLR667]

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1.This appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'.) The appellant is a chit fund company. The officials of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the respondents herein, caused inspection of the office of the appellant on 28-7-2002 and on subsequent dates. Show cause notices were issued, directing the appellant to explain as to why it shall not be brought under the purview of the Act. Ultimately, vide proceedings, dated 7-7-2003, the appellant was brought under the purview of the Act. The appellant filed E.I. Case No. 56 of 2003 before the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The appellant pleaded that it had '16' employees on its rolls and since the number did not exceed '20', it is not liable to be brought under the purview of the Act. It was also pleaded that the respondents have erroneously treated the '8' Directors of the company, as emp...

Mallamkondu Venkata Ramana Vs. Banakathi Obulamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ALD708; 2007(3)ALT631

G. Yethirajulu, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif at Guntakal. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs averred that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the rightful owner under a registered sale deed, dated 19-5-1988. Ever since the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The name of the first plaintiff is mutated in the revenue records by deleting the name of the vendor B. Pedda Linga Reddy. The defendant has no manner of right in the suit property and he is trying to trespass and disturb the possession of the first plaintiff. After the first plaintiff, plaintiffs 2 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the property. As the injunction petition was dismissed during the pendency of the su...

Pavan Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ALD751; (2007)IIILLJ224AP

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant is a chit fund company. The officials of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the respondents herein, caused inspection of the office of the appellant on 28-7-2002 and on subsequent dates. Show-cause notices were issued, directing the appellant to explain as to why it shall not be brought under the purview of the Act. Ultimately, vide proceedings, dated 7-7-2003, the appellant was brought under the purview of the Act. The appellant filed E.I. Case No. 5 6 of 2003 before the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The appellant pleaded that it had '16' employees on its rolls and since the number did not exceed '20', it is not liable to be brought under the purview of the Act. It was also pleaded that the respondents have erroneously treated the '8' Directors of the Company, as e...

South Central Railway and Another Vs. Vinod Sanghi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad in CD No. 980 of 2004 dated 27.4.2005, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder : The complainant Nos. 1 and 2 booked tickets from Hyderabad to Delhi by train No. 2723 and again from Delhi to Haridwar for the dates 12th and 13th March, 2004. The said train should have reached Delhi at 8.40 a.m. on 13.3.2004 but it reached at 12.30 p.m. with a delay of 4 hours due to which the complainants missed the train from Delhi to Haridwar and they had to purchase fresh tickets for travel in a different train. It is the case of the complainants that due to the negligence of the opposite parties they were put to lot of inconvenience. The complainants, therefore, approached the District Forum for appropriate relief. 2. In the counter filed by the opposite partie...

R. Raga Navya and Others Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ...

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 late Smt. R. Lakshmi is the mother of first and second complainants and wife of third complainant. The complainants submit that they are consumers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having domestic gas connection bearing No. V. 22959 and the gas cylinders were regularly supplied to the complainants house by their agent i.e. opposite party No. 3 who was under the control and supervision of opposite parties 1 and 2. On 8.2.2002 late Smt. R. Lakshmi was cooking food for her family and found the existing cylinder empty and at around 11.00 a.m. she changed it with a new sealed cylinder which was supplied by opposite party No. 3 on 3.1.2002. After installing the new cylinder supplied by the agent, she started cooking around 11.45 a.m. and after some time due to failure of the washer i.e. O ring in the cylinder neck, slowly gas leaked out and accumulated under the platform of the gas stove and around 12....

G. Sukumar Vs. Dr. Bodiga Dasharatha and Others

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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6,00,000 towards compensation for loss of life of complainants wife and child and mental agony suffered by him and also to award costs of this complaint. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the wife of complainant Smt. Gangadhari Sulochana aged about 20 years was brought by her mother Balamani on 30.12.2000 to Kavitha Nursing Home belonging to opposite party No. 1 (in short OP 2) at Valigonda and that Dr. Dasharatha, opposite party No. 1 examined her and asked Sulochanas mother to bring her on the next day. On 31.12.2000 Balamani, mother of Sulochana again took her to opposite party No. 2 hospital since she had pains of delivery. The opposite party No. 1 admitted Smt. Sulochana in his Kavitha Nursing Home and on 1.1.2001 hurriedly took her to operation theatre and conducted a surge...

Y. Chandraiah @ Y. Chandra Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(1)ALD730; 2007(1)ALT533

ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide him protection for his agricultural operations in an extent of Ac.4.29 gts, in Sy.No.281; Ac. 1.16 gts in Sy. No. 282 and Ac. 1.26 gts, in Sy. No. 285 of Kuntloor Village, RR District ('the schedule land').2. The petitioner is about 61 years old and he is pursuing relentless efforts and to obtain the fruits of his lawful entitlements to unhindered possession and enjoyment of agricultural land and a peaceful environment for his lawful occupation of agriculture in his land for nearly 40 years.The chronology of facts:A - The litigation:(i) The petitioner's father Yelamati Ramana @ Ramaiah was a protected tenant in respect of the schedule land, who was in possession of the land till his death on 10.1.1960. On 2.8.1967 the petitioner filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Hayatnagar Taluk, Rangareddy District (the Tahsildar) for a succession certificate.(ii) The Tahsildar, by the order bearing ref...