Andhra Pradesh Court July 2009 Judgments

Easlewala Mumtaz Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT395

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Easlewela Mumtaz challenging the order of detention dated 08.04.2009 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy-1st respondent detaining Easlewela Laxminarayana S/o. Kanjarlu on the ground that he is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No. 1 of 1986) (for short, 'the Act'), and consequential order of approval passed by the Advisory Board and confirmation by the Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 2060 General Administration (Law and Order. II) Department, dated 01.05.2009.2. The detaining authority i.e., Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy-1st respondent has referred four incidents to categorize the detenue as a bootlegger as defined under Section 3(1) r/w. 2(a) and (b) of the Act.3. The grou...

Smt. Sarwarunnisa Begum Vs. the Secretary Primary Agricultural Co-oper ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.) 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband deceased Sri Alla Baksh was an employee in APSRTC. He was covered under Group Personal Accident Policy for Rs. 1 lakh. He was a member in R1 society which in turn deducting premium on the life of the assured remitting it to R2. While so on 24.11.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. while he was returning from his duty on his scooter an unknown vehicle dashed against him due to which he fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on spot. Coming to know of it, she rushed to accident spot. On the next day he was buried as per Muslim customs. She informed the death to R1 and R2 on phone and R2 in turn assured to send a surveyor but she did not receive any response. Due to her illiteracy she could not complain it to the police. Later she approached the police and requested them to register the case but they did not . On that she filed a ...

M/S.S.S. Builders, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Syed Abdullah, Member.) No representation for the appellant since several adjournments. Notice sent to the appellants also returned unserved with an endorsement that Party not found. The appellants are represented by an advocate and he is also not appearing. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs....

K. Laxmikantham and Another Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divis ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Hon'ble Member .) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainants whose complaint for insurance claim was dismissed by the District Forum. The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows: The complainants are the wife and son of the insured by name, K.Sambasiva Rao, who died as a consequence of an accident on 9-8-2002 while the insurance obtained by him by way of Personal Janata Accident Policy was valid from 31-3-1999 to 30-3-2011. The said death was intimated to the opposite party, insurer. The opposite party repudiated the policy saying that the said policy was cancelled as per notice dated 14-2-2002. It is alleged that no such notice was ever given by the opposite party. The opposite party on the other hand sent a notice to the complainant enclosing a cheque for the amount of the premium that was earlier paid. Not satisfied with the same, the complainants preferred this claim questioning the proprietary of repudiation of the claim on...

Gunda Venkatesham Vs. Mutyam Radhika and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are similar in all these petitions. F.A.I.A.No.1974/2008: Opposite party No.1 filed this petition to condone the delay of 493 days in filing the appeal. He was a person aged 62 years suffering for the last 1 years from acute intestinal Colic disease associated with pain all over abdomen, nausea and vomiting. He took treatment from time to time for the above mentioned disease in various hospitals and he was advised bed rest also. For some time, he was admitted in Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad for treatment of the above mentioned disease as in patient and he was discharged on 30-6-2007. Subsequently the complainant/respondent filed P.P.No.112/2007 under Section 27 of C.P.Act for non compliance with the order in C.D. He received notice in the said P.P. and the case was posted to 6-2-2008. By that time he was in the hospital and was advised to take bed res...

M/S. Satya Builders, Rep. by Its Proprietor G. V. Raja Kumar and Anoth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is a petition filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party to condone the delay of 194 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that it did not receive copy of the order and as such he obtained a certified copy and then preferred the appeal. The delay was neither intentional nor willful. 2) The respondent filed counter. It put the petitioner to prove that he did not receive copy of the order. While preferring the appeal he obtained ad-interim order, on deposit of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to statutory amount in FAIA No. 1507/2008. However, the said order was not complied. Later he sought for extension, and having obtained it he did not comply the same. On that he filed FAIA No. 2116/2008 to vacate stay. Since the appellant did not deposit the amount, the stay was vacated. Later in the execution proceedings, on his arrest, on an NBW, he issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/-, and the same was bounc...

Mr.K.Venkateshwara Rao Vs. President, D.G. Prasad, Sri Krishna Satyaki ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Hon'ble Member .) This is an appeal filed by opposite party No.2, the builder, assailing the order of the District Forum passed against it. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The complainant, Sri Krishna Satyaki Apartments Owners Welfare Association filed this complaint on behalf of its members, numbering 8, who purchased flats under registered sale deeds and also obtained possession of the flats thereof. It was however complained that when they purchased and took possession of the flats, they were in unfinished state and there were several deficiencies in the work executed by the opposite parties. The builders however initially promised to rectify and provide the common mandatory facilities. Later they did not keep up the promise and went on procrastinating and ultimately failed to rectify the defects. It is therefore in these circumstances that the flat owners resorted to this group action through their welfare association. According to t...

Government of A.P. Excise Department and ors. Vs. S. Nageswara Rao and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(4)ALT812

D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals as well respondents in the Writ Petitions, as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the Writ Appeals as well as petitioners in the remaining three writ petitions.2. Since the issue involved and the parties being same, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, all the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Writ Appeal No. 1752 of 2003 is directed against the common order, dated 23-04-2003, allowing the writ petition W.P. No. 24191 of 2002, filed by the licencee, seeking to declare the Memo No. 1995/Ex.lll-2/2001-2, dated 12-04-2001, issued by the first respondent therein, and the consequential action of the third respondent therein in rejecting the...

Mohd. GhousuddIn (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Khaja MoinuddIn (Died) Per L.Rs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT604

P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful first defendant being aggrieved of the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 65 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal.2. The appellant died and the legal representatives, appellants 2 to 5 were brought on record. The second defendant, Khader Mohiuddin, who is shown as R-7 in the present appeal had not claimed any interest as can be seen in his written statement. The appeal against R-7 had been dismissed as per the order dated 15.6.2006. The contesting respondents, respondents 1 to 6, plaintiffs in the suit, filed the said suit O.S. No. 65 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal, for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and other appropriate reliefs. The first plaintiff Khaja Moinuddin died and the legal representatives, plaintiffs 2 to 6, were added as per the order made in I.A. No. 541 of 1989, dated 12.6.1989.3. The trial court, in the light of the respective ple...

Srinivas Goud and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Gov ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT775

ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 03.06.2009 whereby the TFT licences of the petitioners were suspended pending enquiry.2. Heard Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents.3. On the basis of inspection of the petitioners' TFT shops by the State Task Force party, a show cause notice for suspension of their licenses for the rest of the lease period under Sections 31(1)(b) and 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the petitioners. Questioning the said show cause notice, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8731 of 2009. This Court dismissed the same vide its order, dated 30.04.2009 by holding that the writ petition was not maintainable against the show cause notice. Since the petitioners were stated to have submitted their explanation to the show cause notice, respon...