Andhra Pradesh Court June 2008 Judgments

Garipalli Rajasree Vs. Kondapuram Mallesha and Brothers and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD46; 2008(5)ALT202

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. These civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act, for brevity), arise out of same proceedings. This common order shall dispose of both the revision petitions. C.R.P. No. 1284 of 2004 is filed against order dated 30.1.2004 in R.A. No. 240 of 1999 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder learned appellate authority confirmed rejection order of learned Principal Rent Controller in R.C. No. 1 of 1997 filed by petitioner (landlady) for eviction of respondent (tenant) from non-residential premises (petition schedule premises or mulgi) bearing No. 7-1-635 (ground floor) situated at Subhash Road, Market Building, Secunderabad. During pendency of R.A. No. 240 of 1999, landlady filed I.A. No. 1025 of 2002 under Rule 11(2) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, requesting to receive documents as additional ev...

Prof. M. Vivekananda Murthy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD427; 2008(5)ALT663

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Andhra University, in the Department of Statistics, in the year 1985. He earned superior positions of, Associate Professor, in the year 1990, and of Professor, in the year 1998.2. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, established Population Research Center (PRC) in the Andhra University, in the year 1987. The Vice-Chancellor of the University appointed the petitioner as the Honourary Director of the PRC. After about eight years, the petitioner was replaced by the 3rd respondent as Honourary Director, vide proceedings dated 14.9.2005.3. The Executive Council of the University passed a resolution dated 16.12.2005, to appoint an inquiry officer, to examine the various allegations made against the petitioner in relation to his functioning as Honourary Director. Consequential proceedings were issued by the Vice-Chancellor, on 21.2.2006, and a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an Inq...

D.Y.K. Reddy Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD744; [2008(119)FLR1002]

ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as Head Constable Driver Grade-II in Railway Protection Force questioned the proceedings No. D/XP.579/1/Vol.V (Divisional Order No. 89/96) dated 24.4.1996 by which his representation for voluntary retirement was accepted.2. Petitioner was appointed in Railway Protection Force on 1.11.1973. Initially he was appointed as Constable and thereafter promoted as Head Constable Driver Grade - Ill in January 1980 and further promoted as Head Constable Driver Grade - II in 1992. Stating the ground of ill health, petitioner himself made a representation on 29.1.1996 for voluntary retirement and retired from service vide impugned proceedings dated 24.4.1996 issued by respondent No. 1 accepting the representation made by the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he made representation for voluntary retirement on the ground of his ill-health, but soon after his recovery he also made a representa...

United Shippers Ltd. Vs. Volta Impex P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2009]147CompCas544(AP)

G. Rohini, J.1. Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition filed this application to decide the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition as a preliminary issue.2. As a matter of fact, the writ petition was coming up for final hearing and learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was already heard. However, in view of the specific objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, this Court after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties in detail on the said issue, passed an order on February 1, 2008, as under:Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner with regard to the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition, I do not find any substance in the contention of the respondents that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Hence, while reserving the re...

issa Venkateswarlu S/O Late I.M. Seethapathy Gupta Vs. the State of A. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)332; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)63; 2008CriLJ4092

ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 19-01-2004 in Crl.A. No. 29 of 2003, on the file of the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur, wherein the conviction of the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, as imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntakal, by judgment dated 18-02-2003 in C.C. No. 494 of 2000, were confirmed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 and. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the records.3. The revision petitioner/A-1, along with this mother/A-land sister/A-3, was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No. 494 of 2000. P.W. 1, the de facto complainant, is the wife of the r...

Vempati Anasuyamma (Died) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Gouru Venkateswarloo an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD759; 2008(5)ALT104

K.C. Bhanu, J.1. This appeal by the appellants-defendants 3 and 4 under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.1991, in O.S. No. 7 of 1988, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Miryalaguda, whereunder and whereby preliminary decree was passed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the plaint 'A' schedule lands.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:The plaintiff being minor represented by his mother Gouru Shakuntala filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties on the ground that he is entitled to half share and that the registered partition deed No. 1126/65, dated 24.7.1965, does not bind the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is a stepmother and the 2nd defendant is the father of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff's mother Shakuntala was married to 2nd defendant after enforcement of Hindu Marriage A...

Manda Yadaiah and ors. Vs. Thoomukuntla Karunakar Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD721

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 17 of 2006 V the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the sit schedule property. According to them, their predecessor in title, by name, Somi Reddy, was the absolute owner, and after his death, they have succeeded to his interests. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property from Somi Reddy, and thereby, acquired title. The trial of the suit commenced, and it is at the stage of arguments. Petitioners filed I.A. No. 74 of 2008, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., to permit them to amend the written statement. The purport of the amendment was, to supplement the details of the acquisition of their title through Somi Reddy. Through its order dated 26.3.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.2. Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits mat the necessity for his clients to file the I.A. ha...

Manda Yadaiah and ors. Vs. Thoomukumtla Karunakar Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008AP251

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondents filed O.S No. 17 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properly. According to them, their predecessor in title, by name, Somi Reddy, was the absolute owner, and after his death, they have succeeded to his interests. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property from Somi Reddy, and thereby, acquired title. The trial of the suit commenced, and it is at the stage of arguments. Petitioners filed LA. No. 74 of 2008, under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC to permit them to amend the written statement. The purport of the amendment was, to supplement the details of the acquisition of their title through Somi Reddy. Through its order dated 26-3-2008, the Trial Court dismissed the LA. Hence, this CRP.2. Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the necessity for his clients to file the LA. had ari...

Escorts Consumer Credit Ltd. and Another Vs. Mrs. R.A. Vineela

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: Oral: 1. Aggrieved by the order in CD No. 327 of 2001 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 12,790 to Adi Laxmi Motors Private Limited as down payment and balance of Rs.31,450 financed by opposite party No. 1 under hypothecation agreement dated 11.2.2000 as loan amount and the said loan shall be payable at Rs. 2,125 in EMI. It is submitted that the complainants husband met with an accident on 23.12.2000 and the complainant had to meet his expenditure towards treatment, because of which he could not pay the monthly instalments totalling Rs. 6,375. In all the complainant paid to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 32,295 including the down payment. On 27.3.2001 without issuing any notice to the complainant forcibly took away the vehicle which was in the custody of her brother. The complainants husband visited opposite party No. 1 and ...