Andhra Pradesh Court March 2009 Judgments

A. Narayana Rao Vs. Vice-chancellor, University of Hyderabad, Central ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT160

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-A. Narayana Rao joined the service of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University (for short 'Open University') as Assistant Engineer on 15.5.1986. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 17.2.1992. While working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Open University, he applied for the post of Executive Engineer in University of Hyderabad pursuant to employment notification dated 14.5.2005. He was selected and appointed as Executive Engineer in University of Hyderabad (for short UOH) on 14.6.2007. The Open University accorded lien to him for a period of two years five months w.e.f. 14.6.2006. He was on probation as Executive Engineer in UOH. The period of probation was two years. According to him, he completed two years of probation on 13.6.2008 and therefore, he made requests many a time to UOH to declare his probation. The Registrar, University of Hyderabad issued order on 29.7.2008 extending his probation upto 13.12.2008 on the ground...

M. Lookas Babu and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal Secret ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT350

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners in WPs 8573 and 10432 of 2008 are parties to OAs 4927 of 2007 & 6970 of 2004 and the petitioners in other three writ petitions have filed these writ petitions by obtaining leave of the Court. Batch of OAs including the above OAs were disposed of by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 10-4-2008. The petitioners in all these writ petitions assail the action of the respondents in not filling up the vacancies (Excise constables) reserved for direct recruitment and filling up the said vacancies by the Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP) constables on deputation as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and ultra virus to Rule 3, read with Note 3 of AP Prohibition and Excise Subordinate Service Rules (for short, 'the Special Rules') and to set aside the common judgment dated 10-4-2008 passed in OA No. 6391 of 2004 and batch and consequently direct the official resp...

G.V.S. Rama Krishna and ors. Vs. A.P. Transco Rep. by Its Managing Dir ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2009AP158; 2009(3)ALT502; 2009LC(AP)517

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of different extents of land situated in Rayanapadu village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal and Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal of Krishna District.2. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in proposing to erect poles and lay two Nos. 400 KV double circuit lines through the lands of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.3. It is pleaded by the petitioners that originally a 400 KV line under Vijayawada Power Transmission Scheme was sought to be laid in the property belonging to the Railways. However, subsequently, the proposal was changed and the respondents wanted to form the line through the lands belonging to certain ryots. Since the said ryots brought influence from various levels, the stream of line was again changed and now the respondents intended to form the lines through the lands belong...

Palla Krishna Murthy Vs. Palla Subrahmanyam and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT644

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 6 of 2003 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, against the respondents, for the relief of partition of suit schedule properties and separate possession of his share. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner was being examined as PW.1. During the cross-examination, PW.1 was confronted with a document, dated 29.06.1998, which is said to be a partition deed among himself and respondents 1 and 3. The document is marked as Ex.B.1. Taking the admission of the petitioner, as to execution of Ex.B.1, the trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the jointness of the family is disrupted and it cannot be said that the petitioner is in joint possession of the suit schedule property. On that premise, the trial Court required the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee, after giving credit to the fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/-. An order was passed on 03.12.2008, directing the petitioner to pay the balanc...

B. Mohanlal Naik (Dr.) Vs. District Consumer Forum Constituted Under C ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT634

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the entertainment of CD. 140/2008 by the 1st respondent-District Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar, as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a Doctor, practising at Kurnool and he has treated the 2nd respondent at Kurnool Hospital, and even if there is any deficiency of service, no part of cause of action arose at Mahabubnagar, as admittedly, the 2nd respondent who is a complainant before the District Consumer Forum was treated at Kurnool and thereafter, he was treated at Hyderabad, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.3. A perusal of the complaint goes to show that the complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.04.2008, calling upon the petitioner herein ...

Chappidi Devasenamma Vs. Chappidi Venkata Subba Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(15)ALT525

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Tr.CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.P. No. 1347 of 2008 pending on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Family Court, Hyderabad and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The respondent filed a counter affidavit in detail resisting the Tr.CMP.3. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel representing the parties.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Tr.CMP and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit matter to be ordered. She also placed reliance on certain decisions.5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent had taken this Court through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it is not just and proper to order the Tr.CMP, more so when the respondent is 73 years ...

Chuppala Obulesu Vs. Gottimukkala Subbarayudu and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT28

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri D. Raghava Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is coming up for admission. The appellant herein preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by an order dated 28-07-2008 made by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kadapa in A.S. No. 106 of 2005 confirming the order dated 04-10-2004 made in I.P. No. 49 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa filed by one of the creditors to annul the alienation and the said IP. was allowed declaring the first respondent therein as an insolvent and also annulling Ex.A.5 document. The secured creditor, being aggrieved by the same, carried the matter by way of appeal A.S. No. 106 of 2005 aforesaid and the said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the secured creditor preferred the present appeal.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that though initially he presented C.R.P., in the light of the objection raised by the R...

Canon India Pvt. Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. M/S Venkate ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per Sri R. Laxminarsimha Rao, Member) This appeal is filed by the opposite party no.2 aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum-III Hyderabad in C.D.No.1067 of 2004. The brief averments of the complaint before the District Forum are that the respondent no.2 was authorized dealer of the appellant company in marketing and selling of Canon Xerox machines The respondent no.1 purchased a Canon Xerox model No.NP 7120 on 30.5.2003 for a consideration of Rs.73,500/-. Within 20 days from there the Xerox machine developed problems, within three years of warranty as provided by the appellant. The respondent no.1 approached respondent no.2 with a request to rectify the problems in the machine who in turn was directed to approach the appellant. The problem was not rectified. The Xerox machine was purchased by the respondent no.1 to eke out his livelihood by way of self employment and it was purchased on borrowing loan from private parties. As the Xerox machine was not work...

Moola Vijaya Bhaskar Vs. Moola S.S. Ravi Prakash and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2009AP150; 2009(3)ALT663

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is the plaintiff No. 1 in O.S. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the III-Additional District Judge (FTC) Anantapur, filed for partition of the suit schedule properties claiming that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share each.2. The 1st respondent herein is the defendant No. 2 whereas the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defendant 3 and 4 respectively in the suit. The 4th respondent herein is the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit.3. The defendants filed written statement denying the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties. While claiming that the 3rd defendant was the absolute owner of items 2 to 4 of Plaint-A schedule properties and the same were in her exclusive possession and enjoyment, it was further contended that the plaintiffs ought to have paid the court fee under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valua...

P. Suresh and anr. Vs. A.P. State Rep. by Its District Collector and o ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT419

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Strange are the ways, in which the authorities of the Revenue Department would defeat the rights of the citizens. To trample upon the rights, they would go to any extent. If any instance is needed, this writ petition provides for one.2. One Sri Mamillapalli Subbaiah and Mallkka were the owners of Ac.5.03 cents of land in Survey No. 602 of Proddutur Village in the year 1932. Transactions in relation to that land took place in the years 1935, 1939, 1944, 1945 and 1963 through different sale deeds. The petitioners purchased about Ac. 1.13 cents of land from different persons or agencies through sale deeds dated 14.03.2006, 18.04.2006 and 03.03.2008. They intended to sell the land to others. For this purpose, they approached the Office of Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddutur, 3rd respondent herein either for collecting necessary information or for presentation of documents. They were however informed that the Tahsildar, Praddutur, 2nd respondent herein addressed a...