Andhra Pradesh Court September 2008 Judgments

Smt. Budda Adeyyamma W/O Jaggarao Vs. Kandregula Simhachalam S/O Pedda ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ALT196

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. The sole plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06.11.1979 (Ex.A.1), was dismissed by the trial Court and the said decree is under challenge in this appeal.2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:The first defendant is the father and defendants 2 to 4 are his undivided sons. Fifth defendant is the son of second defendant and sixth defendant is the son of third defendant. First defendant is the absolute owner of a terraced house (suit schedule property). It is alleged that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the first defendant. It is further alleged that defendants 1 to 3 representing themselves and defendants 4 to 6, who were minors then entered into Ex.A. 1-agreement of sale with seventh defendant for a price of Rs. 40,000/- and have received an advance of Rs. 5,000/- on the date of agreement. As per the terms of the agreement it is alleged that the seventh defendant agreed to pay ...

Premodaya Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporatio ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(6)ALD670; 2008(6)ALT550

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a firm having Dealership Agreement - cum - Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL), dated 08.08.1998, with the respondent, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The firm filed the writ petition assailing the order of the Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL, suspending the sales and supplies of all petroleum products at petitioner's retail outlet for a period of 30 days and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order as illegal and void.2. The firm is running a retail outlet in the name and style of M/s. Premodaya at Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. It obtained Form - B licence from the Joint Collector, Nellore, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (State Control Order, for brevity). On 19.01.2000 the Senior Sales Officer (Retail), Nellore, of the respondent company visited the petitioner's outlet. ...

J. Somanna Vs. Registrar, Osmania University and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(6)ALT422

Anil R. Dave, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 1551 of 2000, dated 27-2-2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner.2. The appellant-petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education. Similarly, respondent No. 2 had also applied for the said post. The Selection Committee selected respondent No. 2 and, therefore, being aggrieved by the said selection, the appellant-petitioner filed the aforestated petition.3. After hearing the concerned Advocates and looking at the record of the Selection Committee, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition and, therefore, this appeal has been filed.4. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge and before the appellate Court is that the appellant had secured 64.25% marks in Post Graduation, whereas respondent No. 2 had secured only 54.5% marks. The case of the 2nd respondent was considered, though it was obligatory for a candidate to secure 55% marks at the Post...

M.V. Krishna Vs. Gosula Sudha Madhuri and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ALT215

ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/tenant against the common order and decree, dated 16-11-2005, in R.C.A. No. 4 of 2002 (along with R.CANos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of 2002), passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, (for brevity 'the lower appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the common order and decree, dated 28-6-2002, in R.C.C. No. 2 of 1999, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa (for brevity 'the trial Court').2. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as 'the tenant' and 'the landlords'.3. It appears that the landlords have filed batch of eviction cases against different tenants, including the tenant herein, which were registered as R.C.C. Nos. 2,4,5, 6 and 7 of 1999, before the trial Court on the ground of wilful default and the same were decided against the respective tenants, by order dated 28-06-2002. Each of the tenants preferred appeals befo...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhogi Rajeswari

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: Oral: 1. Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 91/2001 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, opposite party preferred F.A. No. 293/2005 and the complainant preferred F.A. No. 975/2007. Since both the appeals arise out of a similar order, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a new car bearing No. AP30/A1600 in the year 1997 and insured it with opposite party for a period of one year from 12.4.2000 to 11.4.2001 vide policy bearing No. 3162010303590 which covers all risks including fire. On12.4.2000 at about 9.00 p.m. while the complainant along with her family was proceeding from Arinam Akkivalasa Via Srikakulam to Amadalavalasa in her car being driven by driver, Mr. K. Ramu, they stopped the vehicle at Amin Petrol Station in Kotta Raod Junction and got filled two litres of Petrol in the said car and when the driver started the engine to proceed to Amadalavalasa, suddenl...

B. Pardhasaradhi Vs. V. Tripurasundari

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner who is opposite party in main C.D. seeking modification of the order dated 11.6.2008. The learned Counsel submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.Os. under Building Regularization Scheme and accordingly he had applied seeking regularization of third floor which includes flat No. 304. The learned Counsel submitted that his application seeking regularization of flat No. 304 is not being processed because of a Writ Petition pending before the Honble High Court. 2. It is pertinent to note that C.D. No. 38/2003 was disposed of on 21.9.2004 and appeals preferred by complainant in F.A. No. 386/2005 and appeal preferred by opposite party in F.A. No. 1308/2004 have been disposed of by a common order on 29.3.2007 and the above orders have become final. The order in W.P. No. 1069/2008 is dated 27.3.2008 and the learned Counsel has not chosen to file the same before us pending revision. We have gone throug...

Kovilapu Suryanarayana Vs. Jogi Thavitamma and Two ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ALT644

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the sole defendant against the preliminary decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam in O.S. No. 74 of 1988, dated 06-12-1990.2. In this appeal, though the respondents-plaintiffs were served, there is no appearance on their behalf.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant who has taken me through the records of the case. I have considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as findings of the trial Court.4. The case of the respondents-plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows; The plaintiffs are all daughters of one K. Chandrayya. The sole defendant is their brother. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs, defendant and one late Eswararao are children of K. Chandrayya. The plaintiffs alleged that late Chandrayya died 15 years back. His wife also died in 11 years back and their brother Eswararao also died unmarried about six years back. It is admitted that all the...

Sri A.K. Mishra S/O Prabhakar Mishra and ors. Vs. the Union of India ( ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ALT81

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 18-08-2008 passed in O.A. No. 420 of 2008 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the transfer order issued by second respondent.2. The petitioners - applicants have filed the above O.A. challenging the transfer order dated 24-6-2008 issued by the second respondent and sought the following relief:To direct the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the order No. PES/0829/TRANSFER/RP CELL dated 24-06-2008 of the Senior Administrative Officer/Manager (personnel) the mass internal transfer order to the applicants from the Reproduction Cell to the Naval Dockyard's different branches without any sanctioned post there in the Naval Dockyard and quash the same by setting aside the order.Direct the respondents not to transfer the applicants from RPC(V) to the non-sanctioned post in Naval Dockyard without...

Tatikonda Ramulu and anr. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Special Dep ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(6)ALD242

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The District Collector, Karimnagar, 2nd respondent herein issued a notification, dated 2.11.2004, proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.23.22 guntas of land together with the structures thereon in Survey Nos. 92, 96 and 97 of Upperlakesaram Village, Kamanpur Mandal, for the benefit of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, 5th respondent herein. The houses belonging to the petitioners herein were also covered by the acquisition. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 1.8.2005. This was followed by award enquiry. The petitioners have submitted their claims for payment of compensation for their houses.2. The Land Acquisition Officer, 1st respondent herein passed an award, dated 2.1.2007, awarding compensation to the acquired land as well as the existing structures. However, he omitted to award any compensation for the houses of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 8.3.2006, complaining that no compensatio...

Nallamala Padmaja Vs. Nallamala Ramesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(6)ALD726; 2008(6)ALT720

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Ms. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 18.1.2007, in I.A. No. 1928 of 2006 in O.P. No. 1146 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Khammam. The revision petitioner filed the said application being the mother of the minor female child by name Pranavi for temporary custody under Section 12(1) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam, after referring the respective stands taken by the parties having formulated the point for consideration at para 6 and further recording certain reasons after referring to certain decisions which had been relied upon, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the application filed by the mother of the ward for interim custody of her daughter and ultimately dismissed...