Andhra Pradesh Court October 2009 Judgments

Komma Josyula Surya Kumari Vs. M.C.S.Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order( Per Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) Not satisfied with the relief granted in the alternative, the complainant filed this appeal. The facts of the case as culled out from the record are as follows: It appears that the complainant applied for 1000 shares of Maruti Udyog Limited in pursuance of a public offer and lodged application along with application money by way of a cheque drawn on opposite party No.2 bank. lodged with opposite party No.3, the share broker who in turn claimed to have forwarded the application along with the cheque to opposite party no.4, the bankers to the issue. Opposite party no.4 in its turn admitted having received the application as well as the cheque. It also revealed that the original form was sent to opposite party No.1, the registrars to the public issue after crediting the cheque proceeds to the collection account opened for the specific purpose of collection of amounts invested for the Maruti Public Issue. Opposite party No.1 however, denied h...

E. Ratnam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Chief Secretary and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT160

ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of his grand-son viz., Sri Singavarapu Manikanta Kumar, s/o. Veerabhadra Rao, aged about 21 years, resident of Payakarao Peta, Payakarao Peta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, who is detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, pursuant to the impugned order of detention, dated 12.4.2009, in proceedings Ref. No. C1(M)/257/2009, passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari, Kakinada, and as confirmed in G.O.Rt. No. 2090, General Administration (Law & Order. II) Department, dated 4.5.2009, passed by the 1st respondent-Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, before this Court and to release him, forthwith.3. The grand-son of the petitioner w...

Aluri Dhanjaya Vs. Land Acquisition Officer/Special Grade Deputy Colle ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT367

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 27-4-2006. On 21-10-2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to produce the records.2. Heard the Counsel.3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the award alleged to have been passed by acquiring the petitioner's lands to an extent of Acs.9.26 gts. in Sy. No. 52/a of Nallacheruvu of Tallapalliguda village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005 or in the event of non-passing of award to pass fresh award by duly deducting the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per acre paid to the petitioner, even though petitioner's land costs more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of t...

iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT522

ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. By our order dated 03.08.2009, while issuing notice before admission, we have passed a reasoned interim order, granting interim suspension. The said order is as follows:Notice before admission.Learned Government Pleader takes notices for respondents 1 and 2.Issue notice to respondent No. 3 returnable in ten days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall also takes notice for R-3 by R.P.A.D. and file proof of service.It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner figured above the 3rd respondent in the provisional seniority list of Multi Zone-ll issued by the Commissioner of Industries vide Memo dated 13.02.2007 calling for objections from the affected persons. It is stated that the 3rd respondent filed her objections on 02.03.2007 and the said objections were considered and rejected by a reasoned order vide Memo No. 22/2/2008/260, dated 23.08.2008 by the 2nd respondent. The said memo was not questioned by the 3rd respondent for ab...

Suleman BIn Sayeed Vs. District Collector and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT554

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was elected as chair-person of the Kagaznagar Municipality, Adilabad District on 24.09.2005 and assumed the office on 30.09.2005. The Municipal Council comprises of 28 members. 20 members of the council submitted a requisition dated 03.10.2009 expressing want of confidence in the petitioner and submitted the same to the District Collector, Adilabad, 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, the Sub-Collector, Asifabad, 3rd respondent herein issued notice dated 07.10.2009 proposing to convene the meeting of the Municipal Council on 27.10.2009 to consider the motion of confidence against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 07.10.2009 does not accord with Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act (for short 'the Act'). It is pleaded that the Act confers power upon the 1st respondent to fix the date of meeting to take up the motion of no confidence as ...

Ande Gangaiah (Died) Per Lrs. and anr. Vs. M. Krishna Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT204

B. Prakash Rao, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition aggrieved by the Judgment and orders passed in W.P. No. 25692 of 2001 along with a revision in C.R.P. No. 52 of 2002 dated 5th September, 2002 by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3 herein.2. The brief set of events, which led to the present proceedings are, that initially one Sri Syed Mohammed was the absolute owner of the agricultural land which is dry admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9-39 gts in Sy.Nos.95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 situate at Medpally village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He sold the said land to one Sri Prabhudas and his wife Smt. Kamalamma under a registered sale deed dated 15-4-1965. However, the mutation was not effected in their names in the revenue records except to the extent that the possession column recorded their names. Meanwhile, one Ande Gangaiah and Ande Pentaiah got their names entered in ...

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Devel ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT582

D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate General, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing for the appellants, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, appearing for the respondent No. 2.2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11-12-2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the Writ Petition No. 7839 of 2006.3. Appellants are respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No. 1 is the writ petitioner and respondent No. 2 is the respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition.4. The prayer in the said writ petition is as follows:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions declaring the action of the Respondents in depriving the...

Sri Chakradhara Nataraj Kumar Vs. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Auth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order( Per Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order that went against him. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant secured allotment of a flat constructed by the opposite party way back in 1993/1994. Subsequently he was inducted into possession, however in the preliminary documents constituting the conditions and terms of allotment, there is specific mention about the price of the flat being tentative and liable to be revised. Subsequently in terms thereof the opposite party revised the price of the flat and demanded from the complainant the payment of the balance amount due to it by virtue of its proceedings of which Ex.A15 dated 14-11-2002 spelt out the final demand. Intermittently the complainant went on resisting the proposal of enhancement of the price demanded by the opposite party. Apart from his grievance against the additional demand, he also tried to make out sever...

G. Madan Mohan Reddy Vs. M/S the Icfai Institute of Science and Techno ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order( Per Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the opposite party institution. The facts as narrated are as under: The complainant sought admission from the opposite party institution obviously attracted by the course offered. In pursuance of the admission, he paid fees for the entire one year in a sum of Rs.80,600/- in order to study B.Tech degree in the respondent university. Soon he realized that the opposite party institution had no recognition and was neither approved by AICTE nor having tie up with BITS Pilani and other institutions as claimed by it. Disillusioned by this adverse information, the complainant pulled himself out from the institution by issuing a notice. The opposite party institution refunded the caution deposit of Rs.14,000/- but declined to pay the other amounts representing college fees etc. He unsuccessfully tried to persuade to get back the said amount by issuing a notice but in vain. As such he ...

Omeshwar Baldwa, Proprietor, Star Function Palace Vs. Vasavi Co-operat ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2010AP25; 2009(6)ALT733

ORDERNooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been instituted questioning the legality and validity of the notice dated 30.4.2009 issued by the respondent bank in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SEREFASI Act, 2002. The writ petitioner has availed a term loan facility with the respondent bank in a sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Seventy Five Lakhs only) on 20.11.2000. The loan is repayable in 60 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 4,58,780/- per month. As per the abstract of the term loan account No. 296 furnished to the writ petitioner as of 19.11.2002, the writ petitioner was shown as due and payable in a sum of Rs. 2,64,22,716/-. It is worthy to notice from this extract that a sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- has been shown as the principal amount due and outstanding, thus signifying that the writ petitioner has not paid any amount by way of repayment of loan to the respondent bank. On 21.6.2004, the respondent bank invoked the provision available und...