Andhra Pradesh Court July 2009 Judgments

Chandergupt Aroa Vs. Smt. Shaheen Khan and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT451

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 464 of 2002 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. On the ground that the premises, where the appellant was residing and to which the summons were addressed, were found locked, on two occasions, the 1st respondent sought permission of the Court to effect substituted service of summons. On permission having been accorded, substituted service was taken out. Thereafter, the appellant was set ex parte. That was followed by an ex parte decree, dated 18.09.2003.2. At the stage of execution of the decree, the appellant came to know about it. Soon thereafter, he filed I.A. No. 58 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The I.A., was dismissed, initially on 18.05.2005. The appellant filed C.M.A. No. 507 of 2005, before this Court. Through order, dated 27.02.2007, this C...

M. Ramesh Babu S/O. M. Sreeramulu Vs. M. Sreedhar S/O. Mulbagal Munira ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(4)ALT780

ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 in O.S. No. 149 of 2002, dated 16.09.2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the plaintiff in the main suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the defendant in the main suit. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are as follows. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S. No. 149 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as 'lower Court'), against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,63,400/- basing on a pronote, said to have been executed by the respondent on 31.12.1999. The petitioner's case is that the respondent borrowed Rs. 95,000/- from him and executed a pronote on 31.12.1999, marked as Ex.A1, i...

Vizag Profiles Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (Rinl), Popularl ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT58

ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-appellant-defendant No. 1 seeking suspension of the operation of the judgment and decree dt. 10-4-2008 passed in O.S. No. 34 of 2006 by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the trial court.3. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from registering the trade mark 'Vizag Profiles' with symbol 'I' and its usage by the first defendant and for damages of Rs. 10,00,000/-.4. According to the plaintiff, namely, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., (RINL) having its Steel Plant at Visakhapatnam, the plaintiff is a fully owned Government of India Undertaking, and is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, and it is popularly known as Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and is India's most modern shore based integrated steel plant. The plaintiff's compa...

Veerunuri Suvarna and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Pri ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT326

ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The five petitioners allege illegal and unauthorized conduct by the 3rd respondent 'along with staff' in the matter of visiting the houses of the petitioners bearing H. Nos. 16-29/3/2, 16-29/3/5, 16-29/3/1, 16-29/3/4, 16-29/3/3, of Balajinagar, Jawahamagar Grampanchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 15-6-2009 and threatening demolition of the houses without following the due process of law.2. The petitioners encroached Government land and constructed houses about 15 years back. They have not applied for regularization of such illegal encroachments either. They allege that the 3rd respondent unauthorizedly and illegally is trying to dispossess them and demolish their houses without following the due process of law. They also seek regularization of their possession of the land which they have illegally encroached and constructed houses thereupon.3. As the petitioners have not applied to the State for regularization of their illegal occupation and f...

Fateh Mohammed Vs. Fareeda Banu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT615

ORDERR. Kantha Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on 19.06.2006 in E.P. No. 820 of 2003 in O.S. No. 906 of 1989.2. The judgment-debtor/defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The decree-holder/plaintiff filed E.P. against the revision petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. The executing Court after making an enquiry into the E.P., allowed the same.3. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner filed the present revision petition.4. The background facts, leading to filing of the revision, may be briefly stated, as follows:The respondent-decree-holder filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner in respect of the E.P. schedule property, which is a vacant site of an extent of 203 square yards. The learned trial Court while passing the decree on merits, noticed the fact that the revision petitioner without having a pretence of claim in the schedule mentioned property, i...

Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department, Srisailam Pr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT516

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is by plaintiffs, namely, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department, Srisailam Project, Srisailam, Kurnool District. They filed appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.7.1997 in O.S. No. 150 of 1993 passed by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. By impugned judgment, learned Subordinate Judge returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this order, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The fact of the matter may be noticed by briefly referring to pleadings in the suit. Plaintiffs approached first defendant for supply of special items of high yield deformed steel bars worth about Rs. 8,64,000/-for Srisailam Project. First defendant accepted offer and agreed to supply material and deliver at Madras Port. Second defendant was instructed to give necessary assistance...

J.K. Seeds, Bheemeshwara Agro Vs. Guduri Raji Reddy and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Satyanand, Member: Oral: This is an appeal filed by opposite party No.2 against whom as also opposite party No.1, the District Forum passed an order directing them to pay to the complainant an amount towards the relief sought in the complaint. The facts of the case that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant purchased RCH 2 cotton seed of two bags from opposite party no.1 on 18-6-1998 paying an amount of Rs.720/- per bag. Opposite party No.1 issued a cash bill for the same. The said product was manufactured by opposite party No.2. While selling the seed, opposite parties gave an assurance stating that the yield would be varying between 10-12 quintals per acre. The complainant claimed to have sown the seed in an extent of Ac.1.22 with a fond hope of getting the yield as promised. But on account of the quality of the seed being sub standard and defective, there was no production landing him in loss, so he claimed to have made a representation to the Assistan...

ifran Builders Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairperson Mrs. Nejeebunissa and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) This is a petition filed by the petitioners/opposite parties seeking to implead all the 29 members of the complainant association as parties to the lis on the ground as set out in the affidavit to the effect that their presence is necessary to effectively adjudicate the matter without spelling out as to how their presence in the litigation would improve the matter except stating that there were some inter se disputes which, in fact have to be sorted out as otherwise, they impact upon their defence in this case The respondent No.1 who is the complainant resisted the petition stating that their impleadment would be superfluous and would serve no purpose to unravel the issues. Heard both sides. The point for consideration is whether there are any merits in this petition ? This is basically a group action by the association, as a matter of fact, obviating the necessity of bringing into the array all the individual flat owners. In fact such...

District Consumer Information Centre (Dcic) Vs. V. Narasimhulu Teacher ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

D. Appa Rao, President: Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2) District Consumer Information Centre (DCIC), Ranga Reddy on behalf of defacto complainant D. Bala Neela Nath filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 25,000/- paid towards advance together with interest @ 36% p.a., besides compensation and costs. 3) It alleged that defacto complainant Sri D. Bala Neela Nath is a resident of Vikarabad and a retired Railway employee paid an advance of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent on 19.9.2005 for supply of quality wood items viz., 3 Chowkats, 3 doors of teak wood make, 6 Chowkats and a window of neem wood make. The respondent agreed to supply and receive the balance after completion of the work. However, the respondent has supplied one old re-polished teak wood chowkat which he returned. A teak wood door was supplied but he refused to receive. Two months there after the respondent supplied the required items made of raw wood of low quality without any finishing. Whenever, he was enquiri...

ifran Builders Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairperson Mrs. Nejeebunissa and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (Per Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) This is a petition filed by the petitioners/opposite parties seeking permission to cross examine the witness, Dr.Mrs.Tasneem M.Ahmed W/o.Dr.S.M.Ahmed, who it seems filed affidavit on behalf of complainant, levelling some allegations against the witness as she having formed her own self imposed association, colluded with 11 defaulters forming a Mafia and lodging false Police complaints etc., Though the other side endorsed to the effect that orders may be passed on merits in this regard, we are very much bound by the guide lines issued by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Dr.J.J.Merchant and others V. Srinath Chaturvedi in 2002 CTJ 757 = AIR 2002 SC 2931. In the above decision, the Honble Supreme Court, in order to avoid delay in disposal of complaints within the time prescribed under the Act, suggested i) 2) In cases where cross examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is necessary, it suggested questions cross examinatio...