Andhra Pradesh Court October 2009 Judgments

Hyderabad Cricket Association Rep. by Its President and anr. Vs. C. Ba ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT572

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S. No. 1997 of 2009 have filed this C.R.P. aggrieved by the order dated 07-10-2009, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in the application in I.A. No. 1449 of 2009, granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff.2. On 09-10-2009, this Court while ordering notice before admission, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Today, to vacate the same, respondent No. 1 filed vacate stay petition in CRPMP (SR) No. 27263 of 2009, inter alia contending that the interim suspension order has been passed by this Court without appreciating the facts and law, and moved the same by way of House Motion at 5.00 p.m.3. Respondent No. 1 claims to be a businessman and member of Hyderabad Cricket Association and Secretary of Sagar Cricket Club. He states that pursuant to the tender notification dated 20-09-2009 issued by the Hyderabad Cricket Associatio...

Vaka Srinivasa Reddy and anr. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT563

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 27.11.2008 and granted interim direction in W.P.M.P. No. 33502 of 2008. Respondent No. 8 was impleaded as per the order made by this Court on 03-8-2009 in W.P.M.P. No. 35537 of 2008.2. Respondents 3, 5 and 6 in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P. No. 1764 of 2009. Respondent No. 4 filed counter-affidavit. R-7 and R-8 also filed counter-affidavits. W.V.M.P. No. 2455 of 2009 is filed by R-8, the party who was impleaded as aforesaid shown as R-9 in the vacate application to vacate the interim order. The writ petitioners filed reply affidavits to the counter-affidavit filed by R-4.3. When these applications came up for hearing, the counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition and in view of the same the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.4. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, learned Assistant Gove...

Abdullah BIn HussaIn Vs. Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Re ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT14

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the Mulgi bearing No. 3-5-784/A/2 to 6 situated at King Koti, Hyderabad, having acquired the same from his father in succession. According to the petitioner, he let out the entire premises to the unofficial respondents 6 to 8 for running Hi-Line Hotel and Bakery except an extent of 129 Sq. yards of the property consisting of footpath situated behind the Hi-Line Hotel. While so, the petitioner states that the unofficial respondents highhandedly encroached the footpath and installed Haleem Bhattis and also constructed Tin Shed thereby causing inconvenience to the pedestrians and also obstruction to the free flow of traffic. Then, the petitioner made representation dated 28-08-2009 to the official respondents for removal of the encroachments made on the footpath and also to cancel their hotel licence. Now, it is his grievance that the official respondents have neither passed any orders on his representa...

The Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office A.P.E.P.D.Cl. and Oth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum assailing its order imposing liability against them. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant is the son of the registered consumer of electricity bearing service No.4 of Munakalavalasa Village. Initially the opposite party No.1 lodged a complaint against the mother of the complainant for an offence of pilferage of energy wherein he fixed the compounding fee at Rs.2,000/- and also the estimated assessment amount at Rs.15,000/-. The complainant therefore filed a Writ petition before the Honble High Court and the High Court was pleased to pass orders on 9-1-2002 directing the A.P.Transco authorities to pass final assessment within 8 weeks and also ordered to restore the power supply in the meanwhile. Accordingly the opposite parties restored the power on the complainant making a payment of Rs.3,526/- However, they di...

Tripuraneni Prabakara Rao Vs. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insuran ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order(Per Smt.M. Shreesha,Honble Member) None appears for the appellant inspite of several adjournments granted on 01-6-2009, 03-7-2009,13-7-2009, 13-8-2009 for filing proof of service and hence on 16-9-2009 the matter was posted to 0910-2009 under the caption of dismissal. Today also none appeared for the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Secretary to Government (Ex-o ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT590

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This Writ of Certiorari is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2009 in O.A.4960/2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. The said O.A. was filed by the 1st respondent herein questioning the order of the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 10, Consumer Affairs, Food & Supplies (VS) Department, dated 06.02.2008 in placing the services of the 1st respondent herein under suspension under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') until further orders. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A. holding that the 18t respondent herein cannot be placed under suspension till the completion of further investigation and till charge sheet is filed, and the petitioners herein are directed to reinstate him into duty.3. While admitting the writ petition on 29.06.2009, this Court grante...

Sree Manasa Enterprises, Rep. by Its Proprietor Sri P. Brahma Reddy Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2010)27VST473(AP)

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. As common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order. While the proceedings originally under challenge, in W.P. Nos. 12684, 12696, 12702 and 12725 of 2009, were orders rejecting stay pending disposal of the appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, in the other writ petitions the challenge is to the validity of the assessment, orders levying tax on sale of empty bottles. Sri N. Venkataraman, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 12684, 12696, 12702 and 12725 of 2009, would submit that the petitioners therein have already withdrawn the appeals filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and have sought amendment of the prayer, in the aforesaid four writ petitions, to include a challenge to the assessment order. As the validity of the assessment orders are under challenge in the other writ petitions in this batch, the amendment p...

Nischint Constructions and ors. Vs. Dr. Pasumarthi S.N. Murthy and anr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010CriLJ596

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 23-3-2009 of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in M. P. No. 417 of 2009 in C. C. No. 40 of 2002.2. Back ground facts of the case leading to filing of this revision by A1 M/s. Nischint Constructions, rep. by its Proprietrix Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy, A2 Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy, A3 Ch. Baba Prasada Reddy and A5 Ch. Rajyalakshmi are : R1 Dr. Pasumathi S.N. Murthy owns 500 square yards and whereas his wife owns 300 square yards in the premises bearing No. 8-2-322, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Apart from 300 square yards his wife owns some other extent also in the premises. He holds GPA on behalf of his wife. Al is a proprietary concern. A2 is the proprietorix of Al proprietary concern. A3 is the GPA holder of A2. R1 entered into development agreement with A1 represented by A3 who is GPA holder on behalf of the proprietorix. Ex. P. 2 is the copy of the developmen...

Sakalabhaktula Ramesh Vs. Assistant Engineer E.P.D.C. of A.P. Ltd. and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the District Forums order dismissing his complaint. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant is the owner of Nagendra Modern Rice Mill, Billumada Village, Bhamini Mandalam, Srikakulam District. In order to run his rice mill, he secured an electricity service connection from the opposite parties bearing No.06086500120. It is his case that the said service was intended only for the business purpose. He alleged that though the opposite party for some time collected charges as per the utilized units subsequently it started collecting heavy amounts from the complainant. The complainant therefore orally requested the opposite parties to collect as per the recording of monthly power charges. While things stood thus, the opposite party sent a bill for Rs.13,607/- as consumption charges for May, 2004. The complainant requested the ...

Cheryala Srinivas Vs. Moola Sujatha and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT448

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The parties are common to both the revisions. Hence, they are disposed of through common order.2. The 1st respondent filed O.S. Nos. 34 and 35 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of specific performance of agreements of sale dated 15-12-2006, in respect of two separate items of property, situated at Narmetta Village, Mangunoor Mandal, Medak District. The trial of the suit commenced, and in the evidence of the 1st respondent, respective agreements of sale were sought to be marked.3. The petitioner raised an objection, as to the admissibility of the documents. It was pleaded that the agreements required to be registered under entry 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') on account of the fact that there is a recital as to delivery of possession, and that the stamp duty for the documents is inadequate. The 1st respondent pleaded that though there ...