Andhra Pradesh Court June 2009 Judgments

The Executive Engineer (Housing), Central Division and Others Vs. Smt ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The respondent filed complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.98,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.5,000/- as damages as also Rs.5,000/- towards expenses. It was alleged that on 7.5.2003 the respondent paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards registration charges to the opposite parties. On 30.07.2003 the respondent paid a sum of Rs.88,000/- towards first instalment of the cost of the house allotted to her and she was required to pay the balance amount in five instalments. The first appellant through their letter dated 20.11.2003 reminded the respondent that she had not paid the instalment amount of Rs.1,47,000/- as per the schedule by 30.10.2003 and they further informed the respondent that they would receive the second instalment amount with interest @ 10% per annum till 15.12.2003 failing which they would cancel the allotment and further the amount already paid. On 6.1.2004,...

Novartis Consumer Health India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya Sai Medical Distri ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT790

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 7401 of 2004 in the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2), and the petitioner herein (defendant No. 3), for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the 2nd respondent from manufacturing and marketing 'Triaminic' brand products, enumerated in the schedule; through the 3rd respondent and the petitioner or their agents; for perpetual injunction, to restrain the said parties from distributing that produce, and for mandatory injunction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 herein to continue the supply of that product.2. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 153 of 2005 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action for the 1st respondent to file the suit against the petitioner, and that there did not exist any privity of contract between them. A further plea was taken to the effect that the 1...

Shalimar Video Company Vs. Shalimar Enterprises and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT398

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the order dated 16-03-2004 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 628 of 2009 in O.S. No. 86 of 2009. The appellants in those two appeals are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 3 and 4 mentioned in these appeals are defendants 3 and 4, and no relief was claimed against them. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.2. Broadly stated the averments in the plaint are as under:The plaintiff is the proprietary concern carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling the DVDs and VCDs of popular Telugu and Hindi Films. The 2nd defendant procured exclusive licence to manufacture, market and sell the DVDs and VCDs, in respect of vast number of Telugu and Hindi films. Through a letter dated 19-11-2005, the 2nd defendant assigned the rights as regards 926 Telugu and Hindi films for a consideratio...

P. Govardhan Vs. J. Ramesh Babu and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT609

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two revisions are between the same parties, and arise out of the execution proceedings in O.S. No. 148 of 1990. Hence, they are disposed of through common judgment.2. The array of the parties is identical in both the revisions. Respondents 1 to 5 filed O.S. No. 148 of 1990 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, against the petitioner and respondent No. 7, for recovery of Rs. 51,928/-. The suit was decreed on 26-12-1995. After the decree became final, the respondents 1 to 5 filed E.P. No. 40 of 1996. About Ac. 4.50 cents of land in Sy. No. 48/2 of Durgasamudram Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, owned by the petitioner, was attached. Subsequently, it was brought to sale. The 6th respondent, by name, Y. Rajesh, emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/-. in the auction, conducted on 17-02-2002. The amount was deposited and the sale was confirmed on 13-07-2004. A sale certificate was issued on 09-08-2004.3. The 6th respondent, i...

Telugu Kishna Mohan and anr. Vs. Smt. Boggula Padmavathi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT132

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. C.R.P. No. 168 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners-defendants No. 3 and 5 being aggrieved by an order made in I.A. No. 71 of 2008 in O.S. No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. C.R.P. No. 216 of 2009 is filed by the self same parties being aggrieved by an order made in I.A. No. 100 of 2008 in O.S. No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.3. C.R.P. No. 293 of 2009 is filed by the self same parties against the order made in I.A. No. 78 of 2008 in O.S. No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The said applications were disposed of by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal by a common order dated 2-1-2009.4. This Court ordered notice before admission in these C.R.Ps on 9-2-2009. In C.R.P. No. 168 of 2009, interim stay was granted for a limited period, which was subsequently extended for a fu...

National Highways Authority of India Vs. Guntur Municipal Corporation ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT663

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The National High Way Authority of India (for short 'NHAI') filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondent-Guntur Municipal Corporation in dumping several RCC water pipes within ROW of NH-5, Chilakaluripet -Vijayawada section at Km. 11/800 to Km. 13/400 (LHS) of Guntur bypass for the purpose of laying a pipeline without obtaining the prior permission of the NHAI as required under the National Highways Act 1956 and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (13 of 2003) is arbitrary and illegal.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the respondent-Municipal Corporation stating that the proposed work of laying of pipeline does not cause any damage to the highway safety and does not disturb the traffic movement. It is further stated that the project for laying pipeline consists of three kilometers in length starting from Takkellapadu raw water pump to Takkellapadu filtration point. It is further sta...

S. Saraswathi and ors. Vs. Dr. M. Tyagaraju Reddy and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT454

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the appellants challenge the judgments dated 17-01-2008, rendered by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, in appeals preferred by the respondents, in O.S. Nos. 41, 51, 50, 52, 42, 53, 48, 47, 43, 40, 39 of 2001, respectively, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.2. The appellants filed the respective suits against the respondents for recovery of certain amount, covered by promissory notes. The 1st respondent is an individual, whereas the 2nd respondent is a Private Limited Company. Incidentally, the 1st respondent is the Chairman and Managing Director of the 2nd respondent-Company. The suits were opposed on several grounds. The trial Court decreed the suits through judgments dated 30-01-2004.3. The respondents filed A.S. Nos. 44, 46, 37, 29, 31, 36, 38, 45, 33, 41 and 32 of 2004, respectively, before the lower Appellate Court. Apart from assailing the judgment and dec...

D. Jagga Rao (Died) and ors. Vs. N. Dharma Rao (Died) and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT417

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three revisions arise out of the steps taken in O.S. No. 48 of 1997 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in C.R.P. No. 4193 of 2007.2. Respondents 1 to 3 (for short 'the respondents) filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property against the petitioners 1 and 2, and respondents 4 to 13. On the summons sent to the deceased-1st petitioner, i.e. D. Jagga Rao, it was endorsed that he died. Therefore, the respondents filed I.A. No. 429 of 1999 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead the petitioners 3 to 8 herein as legal representatives of the deceased-1st petitioner. The I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court on 04-01-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.R.P. No. 5196 of 2003 before this Court. The revision was dismissed on 08-03-2006.3. After the dismissal of the C.R.P., the r...

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Divisional Ma ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT405

R. Kantha Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 08.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram in M.O.P. No. 901 of 2005.2. The respondent-claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred at 7.00 p.m., on 01.06.2005. After making an enquiry into the claim, the Tribunal passed the award granting compensation of Rs. 73,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.3. Assailing the said award, the appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam which is the second respondent before the Tribunal filed the present appeal.4. Challenge to the award by the appellant is on the ground that the claim petition is filed on false and invented grounds, the Tribunal should not have awarded any compensati...

Fazaa Foundatio Trust Rep. by Its Duly Authorized and Constituted Atto ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT429

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 24-10-2008 passed in IA No. 787 of 2007 in OS No. 199 of 2007 by the VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam.2. The facts stated are:- Faza Foundation Trust-revision petitioner herein filed the above application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit Mr. Munnavar H. Mehdi, S/o. late Hussain S. Mehdi, who is one of the attorneys of 2nd defendant under Power of Attorney dated 29-8-2007, to attend to all the legal matters relating to 2 defendant.3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner being a trust called Faza Foundation Trust, since there is no prohibition, as such, to appoint a power of attorney under Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, the Court below ought to have allowed the application. Learned Counsel also contended that mere conferring of powers on the power of attorney does not amount to abdication of powers and duti...