Andhra Pradesh Court November 2009 Judgments

Rajaka Hakkula Porata Samithi (A.P.) Rep. by Its President and ors. Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT534

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The validity of G.O.Ms. Nos. 15 and 16, Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department dated 19.2.2009 is under challenge, in this batch of writ petitions, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P. Act 20 of 1993').2. While Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel, Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, Sri G. Arun Kumar, Sri V. Venugopal and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, have made elaborate submissions in challenge to the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 19.2.2009, the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 16 dated 19.2.2009 was, however, muted on the plea that its effect on those who were already in Group-A was insignificant. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel has also placed on record his written arguments. The Learned Advocate General, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao and Sri V. Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the respondents, have argued in s...

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Registrar (Vigilance) Vs. Vir ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT210

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar (Vigilance)/1st respondent in W.P. 23719/2008 filed this review petition under Rule-24 of the Writ Rules read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order of this Court dated 26-03-2009 in W.P. 23719 of 2008.2. The question that arises for consideration in this review petition is whether it can be said that the review petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, and if so, whether there are any grounds made out for review of the order of this Court.3. The review petition is maintainable under Rule-24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code if the review petitioner discovers new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other suffici...

Smt.M. Jyothsana Vs. M/S. Pragathi Promoters, Rep. by Its Managing Par ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) Not satisfied with the quantum of relief granted by the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal. This litigation has a checkered history and once the matter went up to the National Commission and now it is in the second round. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant entered into an agreement dated 26-4-1998 with the opposite parties for construction of a flat for her use. The agreement provided for various features including compensation for delay in delivery of possession from the stipulated date namely 20-10-1998 for four months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and subsequently by way of interest on the principal amount paid towards the cost of the flat quantified at Rs.7,75,250/- at the rate of 18% p.a. for the further delay after the lapse of four months after the stipulated date of delivery of possession till the date of delivery of actual possession. The complainant came up...

The Postmaster Post Office,yousufguda, Hyderabad Vs. T. Ratnamala

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the opposite party before the District Forum assailing the order of the District Forum that went against it. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant and her husband together deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- in Kisan Vikas Patra Scheme and obtained relevant certificates under joint B type. The said patras were encashed prematurely on 16-1-2002. After encashment, the complainant claimed to have opened an SB account with the opposite party post office on 5-2-2002 and transferred the proceeds of the Kisan Vikas Patras into the said account. Later the complainant approached the opposite party to withdraw the said amount. The opposite party refused to pay the amount by saying that no such amount was lying in the account of the complainant and he also took away and detained the pass book and in lieu thereof issued a receipt dated 27-3-2002. The complainant came to know that her money was mi...