Andhra Pradesh Court July 2009 Judgments

V.V.L. Sujatha Vs. M/S.Sai Priya Estates, Rep. by Mr.N. Ram Mohan

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Hon'ble Member .) This is revision petition filed by the complainant/respondent in I.A. against whom the District Forum passed an order in I.A.No.55/2008 in C.C.No.1026/2007 brushing aside the opposition of the revision petitioner for appointment of a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule premises and to further verify whether a tenant was still residing in the building. The District Forum passed an order acceding to the request of the interlocutory applicant and appointed a Commissioner for the purpose indicated in the application. The revision petitioner/respondent/ complainant opposed the petition citing a couple of judgements of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the adjudicatory bodies under Consumer Protection Act, do not have such a power to appoint a Commissioner, yet the District Forum passed an order appointing a Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present revision ...

Coastal Oil Mills Rep. by Its Managing Partner, M. Bapaiah S/O Ramalin ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT551

A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This regular appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the decree and judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District made in O.S. No. 259 of 1997 dated 25-07-2001, whereby the lower court while declaring the title of the plaintiff to the goods, restricted the suit claim and decreed for the amounts of sale proceeds only.2. During the course of our judgment, we refer the parties as arrayed in the lower court for the sake of convenience.3. The plaintiff, who is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in tobacco seed oil, neem oil, sent 79.020 metric tonnes of tobacco seed oil to the 3rd defendant-Company, which is having refinery machinery, for refining the oil between 17-07-1996 and 10-09-1996 and after processing an extent of 31.740 metric tonnes of refined oil was received, but the remaining tobacco oil i.e. 49.280 metric tonnes was with the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant was provided with financial assistance to establish th...

Dasarla Koteswaramma Vs. Alla Venkayamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2009AP195; 2009(6)ALT249

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 1587 of 2002 in the court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 29.06.2004 . During the pendency of the suit he secured attachment before judgment of an item of immovable property.2. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 1085 of 2004 for sale of attached property. After securing the permission of the executing court under Order XXI Rule 72 CPC, the petitioner participated in the sale, held on 19.04.2005. The petitioner deposited entire sale consideration and poundage. However, he did not deposit the cost of non-judicial stamp papers within 15 days from the date of sale. It was only on 23.6.2005 that the petitioner made such deposit.3. Initially, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 1205 of 2005 under Section 148 CPC with a prayer to enlarge the time for deposit of the amount for purchase of non-judicial stamps. It was pleaded t...

P. Venkatramana Vs. M. Venkataramana

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT113

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 172 of 2008 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad, against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note dated 01-08-2006. The petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note. Before the trial of the suit commenced, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 70 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to send the suit promissory note for opinion of a hand writing expert. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 13-04-2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. - Hence, this civil revision petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The sole basis for the respondent to file the suit against the petitioner was the promissory note. The petitioner flatly denied the execution thereof. It is in this context that the petitioner filed the I.A. under Section 45 of th...

Mulla Ahmed Ali Baig Vs. Mulla Jaibunnisa Begum and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT642

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Respondents 1 to 5 filed O.S. No. 53 of 2000 in the court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 13 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.2. That suit was tried along with O.S. No. 13 of 2002. A preliminary decree was passed determining the shares of the respective parties in different schedules of properties. During the pendency of the suit, they filed I.A. No. 753 of 2002 in O.S. No. 53 of 2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the petitioner from alienating the suit schedule property and an order of temporary injunction was passed.3. After passing the preliminary decree, the respondents 1 to 5 filed I.A. No. 377 of 2009 under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment of items C and E of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner opposed the application stating that it is not maintainable. The trial court passed an order dated 21.3.2009 directi...

J. Malla Reddy Vs. Smt. I. Shantamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT493

A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. C.M.A. No. 1448 of 2008 by the auction purchaser and C.M.A. No. 200 of 2008 & C.R.P. No. 5004 of 2008 by the decree holder, which are directed against the common order dated 06-02-2008 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in E.A. Nos.23 & 24 of 2007 in E.P. No. 50 of 2002, are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the course of our judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Court below, for the sake of convenience.3. The facts in nutshell giving rise to filing the present appeals and revision are as under:M/s. Maharastra Apex Corporation Limited (hereinafter called decree-holder) filed E.P. No. 50 of 2002 against Irrigation Engineering Company (India) Limited, Ranigunj, Secunderabad represented by its Joint Manager, Praveen Dawar; Rajkumar Tandon and Smt. I. Shanthamma. All the three were shown as co-obligators for execution of award passed by Sri A.S.N.Habaar, advocate, Arbitrat...

Kunjam Suranna and ors. Vs. Special Collector (Land Acquisition) Indir ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT441

T. Meena Kumar. J.1. The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30-3-2009 in W.P. No. 14918 of 2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.3. The appellants filed the above writ petition No. 14918 of 2008 seeking a mandamus declaring the Notification Ref. No. B1/508/09 dated 6-6-2008 issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in local newspapers on 19-6-2008 as arbitrary and illegal.4. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are as follows:According to the petitioners, they are in occupation and enjoyment of various extents of lands mentioned in the schedule annexed to the 4(1) notification which is their ancestral property. Pudipalli is a village located in Devipatnam mandal in the Scheduled area of East Godavari district. All the lands in the village are the ancestral property of Sche...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Amarjeet Singh Makhija

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT383

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Both the revisions are filed by the same petitioner, against the same respondent.2. The respondent filed O.S. No. 1419 of 2004 in the court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad against the petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction. He also filed I.A. No. 287 of 2004 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property is part of estate of late Girija Shanker and others. One of the coparceners by name Naresh Kumar filed O.S. No. 273 of 1969 in the court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and separate possession of joint family property. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit and it was confirmed by this Court in C.C.CA. No. 16 of 1974. In the final decree proceedings, the present suit schedule property is said to have been allotted to the share of Naresh Kumar and after the death of Naresh Kumar on 13.10.1997, it devolved upon his legal heirs and they in tu...

Sagi Vijaya Ramachandra Raju and ors. Vs. Koppisetti Satyanarayana and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT353

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellants and the first respondent in both the appeals are common. The appeals arise out of a common order, dated 26.03.2008, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kowur. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A. No. 564 of 2008.3. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 148 of 2007 against the appellants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that himself and his family members purchased various extents of land in Survey No. 455 of Yarnagudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District from Manthena family. According to him, though the appellants are said to have purchased about Acs.20.00 of land in the same survey number, they do not have any title, possession or right over any portion of Survey No. 455 and that they are interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. He a...

Sada Lakshmi Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(4)ALT763

ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the 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 a direction to the respondents to produce her husband viz., G. Ashok @ Jadukattala Ashok, s/o. Hanumaiah, aged 40 years, resident of H. No. 5-49/1, India Basti, Darga Hussain Shahwali, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, who had been detained in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, pursuant to the order of detention, dated 31-03-2009, in proceedings Rc. No. B2/439/2009, passed by the 1st respondent herein-Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(a) and (b) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity 'the Act'), before this Court and set hi...