Andhra Pradesh Court September 2009 Judgments

M/S. Gmr Industries Limited, Hyderabad Represented by Its Managing Dir ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral order : ( per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) 1) This complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 for payment of the value of short delivery of imported Australian Coaking coal of 966.22 MTs, out of the total weighment of 24,418 MTs of cargo, worth Rs.84,99,410/- discharged at Haldia and Paradeep Sea ports covered by three Standard Fire and Special perils Policies which was undertaken to be transported by the third opposite party as per the contract. The repudiation of the insurance claim by opposite parties 1 and 2 and denial of liability by the third opposite party as to the short delivery of the consignment has been attributed as deficiency in service. 2) The factual matrix of the case in brief is as follows : The complainant is a Public Limited Company had imported cargo of 40,483 MTs Australian Coaking Coal through shipment and consignment reached Indian territory through container. Out of the total weighment, 24,418 MTs of Cargo was discharged at Haldia and ...

Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Non-conventional Energy Developme ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT402

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. This batch of appeals is preferred by the employer of the respective respondents questioning the common order of the learned Single Judge whereunder the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment of dismissal of the respondent in each case and substituted it by directing reinstatement of each of the respondent but denying the back wages and giving opportunity to the appellant to impose any minor punishment, keeping in view the findings under the enquiry report.2. We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in this batch and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in each of these cases.3. The learned senior counsel, at the outset, has submitted that the order impugned is in conformity with the findings of fact reached against each of the respondents, in this batch, by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and as such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfer...

M/S.Urmila Constructions and Developers Rep. by Its Managing Partner V ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order: K. Satyananad, Member: This is an appeal filed by the opposite party against whom the District Forum passed an order imposing liability on the ground of deficiency in service. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows: The complainant was an employee of Government Mint. He along with other co-employees formed into an association and they acquired plots in a collective effort. He purchased plot No.65 in S.No.190 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. under a registered sale deed after paying a total consideration of Rs.70,000/- from one P.Krishna veni represented by her G.P.A., These plot holders formed into an association by name, Mint Employees Housing Welfare Association, approached the opposite party to entrust the development work as constructing houses to its members. In pursuance thereof, they reached a memorandum of understanding between the Welfare Association for the benefit of the Members and Urmila Constructions, the first opposite party. As the complaina...

G. Sudershan Rao Vs. the Chairman Vamshi Welfare Association and Anoth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral order( As per Sri K. Satyananad, Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum rejecting his claim. The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant was a contractor working for Indo Dutch Proteins Ltd., a tenant in one of the flats of the complex of which opposite party No.1 is the representative association. On 14-8-2002 the complainant went to the said complex on some business work with the said tenant by name, Indo Dutch Proteins Ltd., for clearing the outstanding bills. As he was entering the lift, the lift took off even before he closed the shutters and as a result he tumbled down and fell into the pit of the lift and consequently sustained injuries variously. He claimed that he sustained very grave injuries and had to spend nearly Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. According to him this accident occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties in as much as the opposite party No.1 did not put up a ...

Sravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, M. Ranga Rao and anr. Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT749

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. W.P. No. 18256 of 2008 is filed seeking a direction to quash the show cause notice, issued by the respondent on 02.02.2007, as without jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks a further direction for refund, with interest, of Rs. 1,73,76,124/- and return of all the documents seized by the respondent as stated in the panchanama. W.P. No. 20446 of 2008 is filed seeking a direction to quash the show cause notice, issued by the respondent on 07.02.2007, as without jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks a further direction for refund, with interest, of Rs. 25,40,591/- and return of all the documents seized by the respondent as referred to in the panchanama dated 27.10.2005. As the questions raised, in challenge to the impugned orders, are common in both the writ petitions they were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order.2. Both Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor Ge...

D. Siva Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Principal Secretary ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT97

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued notice before admission on 10.6.2009 and issued Rule Nisi on 11.8.2009. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 1.2. Dr. Siva Prasad, writ petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ at Quo Warranto to set aside the notification issued by the first respondent G.O.Ms. No. 418 PR & RD (Elections and Rules), dated 06.9.2007 implementation of which is sought to be justified on untenable grounds in the first respondent's laconic communication, dated 19.02.2009, as stated in para 13 and thereby declaring the said notification as illegal so far as the appointment/nomination of second and third respondents as members of the District Planning Committee, Anantapur, is concerned and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment/nomination as member of the District Planning Committee, Anantapur, under 'Experts' category and pass such other suitable orders.3. Though respondents 2 and 3 had been served, ...

Karumanchi Janakamma Vs. Bodapati Punnaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT72

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant filed O.S. No. 317 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,600/-on the strength of a promissory note against the respondent. The suit was decreed on 21-09-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S. No. 27 of 2005 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal on 19-08-2009 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court was left with no alternative except to dismiss (sic. decree) the suit on account of the fact that it is reported on behalf of the respondent that he has no evidence to adduce. He contends that the trial Court did examine the various facets of Order XVII C.P.C. and it decided the matter on merits. The learned Counsel submits that the lower appellate...

Podduturi Vasantha Reddy Vs. Estate Officer, Airports Authority of Ind ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2010AP46

ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. As much as common questions of law are raised for consideration on same set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned the orders issued under Section 5-A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, by the respondents. Through the aforesaid orders, the respondent has ordered for removal of flats in a residential complex, namely 'Archana Apartments'. As in all the writ petitions, identical orders are questioned, I refer to the facts as narrated in W.P. No. 14417 of 2001.3. One Smt. C. Kamsamma, claiming to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 600 square yards in the premises bearing No. 1-11-252/1/E in Survey No. 19 of Begumpet, has sold her undivided share to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994, bearing document No. 3071/94. After purchase of the said plot, the p...

M/S.Karvy Consultants Limited and Others Vs. Makineni Deepika and Othe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order: ( As per Smt.M. Shreesha, Presiding Member) The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo filed by the appellant reporting that the matter was settled out of court. There shall be no order as to costs....

Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab S/O Mr. Ahmed Aziz Vs. the Government of India, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(6)ALT1

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Is the Director, Software Technology Parks of India (STPI), Hyderabad, (a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860), an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Deputy Secretary? It is only if he is, would he be eligible, under Section 11(1) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (S.E.Z. Act), to be appointed as a Development Commissioner of one or more Special Economic Zones. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of quo warranto to quash and set aside the order of the first respondent, as published in the Gazette of India dated 12.11.2007, appointing the 5th respondent as the Development Commissioner of thirty Special Economic Zones in Andhra Pradesh. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the Government of India, by resolution dated 18.12.1986, announced its policy on software export, software development and training. The resolution provided for an inter-ministerial standing committee to function as an effective instrument for si...