Andhra Pradesh Court August 2009 Judgments

Nallamothu Ruthrani (Dr.) Vs. Govt. of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal Secr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT689

ORDERGoda Raghuram, J. 1. The 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Guntur addressed a notice in Proforma-II dated 13-10-2008 informing the petitioner -the Chairperson of the Ponnuru Municipal Council - that the 2nd respondent was communicated a notice of the intention to move a motion expressing 'want of confidence' in the petitioner under Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'); that the meeting of the Municipal Council, Ponnuru, would be held on 29-08-2008 at 11-00 A.M. at the specified premises for consideration of the motion; and that a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed and signed by nineteen (19) members which having been verified by the 2nd respondent was found to be in order as regards identity of the signatories to the proposed motion. This notice dated 13-10-2008 is impeached on the sole ground that the notice of the intention to move motion received by the 2nd respondent is in transgression of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act.2. ...

S.V.S. Cable Network and ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Cable Network and o ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT139

ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not registering, in appropriate sections of law, the complaint lodged by it against respondents 5 to 9, as illegal and arbitrary.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a proprietary concern and carrying on business in cable network in the name and style of 'Sri Venkateswara Cable Network' at Chirala Town, Prakasam District and it is the only multi system operator in Chirala Town. While so, in the year 2008 the 6th respondent flouted a fake cable network in the name and style of 'SVS Cable Network' projecting the 5th respondent as proprietor and respondents 7 and 8 as partners, by obtaining a licence from the postal authorities by fraud. Though the 5th respondent is not having multi system operation, it is transmitting the channels. Having come to know about the same, it lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer,...

Chekkala Narayana Rao Vs. Grandhi Atchutarama Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT378

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 39 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, against the 1st respondent, for recovery of money. He has also prayed that a charge be created on an item of immovable property. The 2nd respondent got itself impleaded in the suit, as defendant No. 2, stating that the item mentioned in the suit schedule was hypothecated to it. The trial Court decreed the suit. A decree was drawn in terms of Order XXXIV C.P.C., as though it is a suit for mortgage.2. The 2nd respondent filed I.A. No. 1456 of 2003, under Sections 151 and 153 of C.P.C., with a prayer to amend the decree. It was urged that the suit was the one, for recovery of money-simpliciter, and the decree was drawn, as though it was a suit for mortgage. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 19-12-2003. Hence, this revision.3. Sri V.L.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the ...

M/S Sri Maruthi Chits and Finance, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri De ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri K. Satyanand, Member .) This is an appeal filed by the opposite party assailing the order of the District Forum passed against it. The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows: The respondent/complainant is subscriber of two chits floated by the appellant/opposite party bearing Nos. BL 54-3334 for Rs.1,00,000/- spread over 40 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and SM 9-9 for Rs.1,50,000/- spread over 30 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. She claimed to have paid 22 months for the first chit and 20 instalments for the second chit. Later the person that used to collect monthly subscription failed to turn up subsequent to 8-8-2003. On enquiry she came to know that the opposite party closed the office and was not conducting the chit auctions and also fell in arrears of meeting his commitments and she therefore approached the District Forum on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite p...

Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri K. Satyanand, Member .) This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum assailing the order passed against them. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant is a Devasthanam represented by its Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer. The Devesthanam was having three service connections for supply of electricity by the opposite parties. One of the service bearing No.116/08060 became erratic as shown by the bills commencing from May, 2002 showing as if the complainant had consumed more than 1,000 units. As a matter of fact there was no such heavy consumption. So the complainant claimed to have found that there was some defect in the electrical meter and so gave a complaint to opposite party No.2 to change the electric meter but it did not evoke any response. Subsequently the complainant received a bill for Rs.22,676-10 ps. On 01-7-2003 for consumption of 5,600 units. Thereupon the complainant...

Sri Choppa Ramanaidu Vs. the Manager of Development Officer, Andhra Pr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri K. Satyanand, Member .) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant aggrieved by the order of the District Forum that went against him. The facts stated briefly are as follows: It is the case of the complainant that he claimed the release of the margin money by the opposite party under a scheme what is called A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Margin Money Scheme. As per the terms of the said scheme, it seems the A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board intended to release margin money to the self employed youth on a bank loan sanctioned in favour of them. The margin money was to a tune of 30% of the loan amount. In the instant case, the complainant obtained a bank loan from the State Bank of India, Korukonda branch to a tune of Rs.82,000/-. The said amount was sanctioned to him after the complainant himself paid a sum of Rs.27,782/- towards his contribution for purchase of the vehicle. After getting the sanction of the loan by the bank, the...

Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Udner C ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT377

G. Rohini, J.1. The 2nd respondent - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL') - issued tender notice dated 1.5.2008 inviting sealed tenders on two stage bidding system in four parts from the eligible bidders for planning, engineering, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of GSM/UMTS based cellular mobile and supply, installation, testing & commissioning of infrastructure for network of capacity for twenty five million lines to be rolled out in three phases in the licensed service areas of BSNL in South Zone. Similar tender notices were issued in North Zone, West Zone and East Zone.2. The tender is divided into four parts. Part-1 covers planning, engineering, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of GSM based cellular network, Part-2 covers the planning, engineering of 3G network and MBMS, Part-3 covers supply, installation, testing and commissioning of infrastructure and associated items for radio sites and Part-4 covers the OSS / BSS. Eligi...

M/S.Maruthi Chits and Finance Company Represented by Its Managing Part ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order: (Per Sri SYED ABDULLAH ,Honble Member) A memo is filed by the petitioner counsel seeking permission to withdraw the delay petition as well as the unnumbered appeal. Accordingly the delay petition is dismissed as withdrawn and unnumbered appeal is rejected as withdrawn. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount by filing a proper cheque petition....

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Rep. by General Manager Vs. V ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT267

ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07-09-2006 in W.A. No. 936 of 2006.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader representing the State. Perused the records.3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed writ petition in W.P. No. 22875 of 1999 against respondents 5 to 7 herein for quashing the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Gazette dated 30-08-1992 and the subsequent draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') published in the Gazette dated 02-03-1994 to the extent of Ac.15-22 cents of land in Sy. No. 288 belonging to the writ petitioners situate at Jallaram Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District, on the ground that the award was passed after expiry of two years period specified in Section 11-A of the Act and as such th...

The Fertilizer Wholesale Dealers Welfare Association Rep. by Its Gener ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(5)ALT725

ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus against respondents 1 and 2, not to insist the members of the 1st petitioner- Association, to submit separate Form A-1 intimations to different Notified Authorities in respect of their storage points, under the provisions of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order'), and further, to declare Clause (5) of the Terms and Conditions of Form A-1 as arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional.2. 1st petitioner is an Association registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, and all its members are wholesale dealers in fertilisers. 2nd petitioner is the fertilizer dealer, who is also a member of the 1st petitioner-Association.3. The Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, is issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is a self-contained Control Order, which prescribes...