Andhra Pradesh Court March 2010 Judgments

Vangala Laxmamma Vs. Pasham Narsi Reddy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT165

ORDERB. Seshas Ayana Reddy, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27-8-2009 passed in O.S. No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge overruled the objection with regard to admissibility of the document dated 21-05-1990 and marked the same as Ex.B-1.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and whereas the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. The reliefs sought for in the suit read as hereunder:(a) That a preliminary decree may be passed by partitioning the suit schedule property by declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a total share of 1/3rd in the plaint schedule property and accordingly the Defendant No. 1 is entitled to 1/3rd and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share(b) A commissioner may ...

M/S Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. M.L. Agarwal

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the opposite party before the District Forum assailing the order passed by the District Forum. The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows: The complainant purchased 10 Apollo tyres from the dealer of the opposite party, M/s.S.V.Tyres, Secunderabad. The complainant submitted that the tyres have prematurely failed, busted, canvas visible, torn badly damaged and unfit for further use despite taking all precautions of inter change of wheels and tyres and keeping air pressure within 85 lbs and 105 lbs and carefully driving for about 27.000 Kms. against the assured guarantee of 80,000 Kms. groove/4 years from any manufacturing defects. The complainant submitted that he made a complaint to the opposite party on 28-6-2006 through letter about the damage of two tyres bearing Nos.RO 91270 Nov-05 and RO 41106-Nov.05 of size 10.00-20 Apollo XT 9 covered by bill No.6027 of 30-11-2005 of M/s.S.V.Tyres. T...

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar Vs. C. Chandresekhar Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT101

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 46 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The suit is filed for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendant/respondent herein under a promissory note dated 5-12-2003. The defendant/respondent herein filed written statement denying the suit transaction and contending that the suit promissory note was fabricated by affixing the stamps that were removed from some office records.2. While the suit is coming up for framing of issues, the defendant filed I.A. No. 840 of 2008 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with a prayer to reject the suit promissory note alleging that it was inadmissible in evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is alleged that the suit promissory note was a fabricated and fraudulent document and that the adhesive stamps on the said promissory note were not cancelled as required in law and therefore it was not a...

Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Finance, (Formerly Ministry of Disin ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT104

ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 15-10-2009, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 254 of 2009 in O.S. No. 145 of 2007, praying to receive the documents by condoning the delay in filing the same.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which the petitioner sought to file are those with respect to which reference is made in the written statement, and considering the fact that the respondent made his claim based on concocted documents, it is appropriate that they should be received. He submitted that it is quite natural that in the Government because of administrative reasons, delays do take place, and considering such administrative reasons, a lenient view has to be taken, and the documents which the petitioner sought to receive, have to be received by condoning the delay, else the petitioner would be adversely affected. In support of his argument that to me...

Management of Chittivalasa Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Principal Secretary to ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)ALT808

ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in issuing the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 1265 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab. I) Department dated 20.8.2009, prohibiting lockout declared by the petitioner-Company in its factory at Chittivalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice; consequently, to set aside the said G.O.2. Petitioner is the Management of M/s Chittivalasa Jute Mills Limited, Chittivalasa, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. According to the petitioner, it manufactures jute products and about five thousand workers are employed in it. The financial position of the jute mill is not so sound. They are in crisis in view of competition with polythene bags. There are various industries, which were previously using jute bags for package of the products manufactured by them, now using polythene bags. Thus, the fi...

Sukhavasi Vijay Krishna Vs. M/S A.P. State Council of Higher Education ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad in C.D.No.276 of 2006 whereby his complaint was dismissed holding that in the event of a student leaving the institution mid-way through a particular course of study, the students are liable to pay for the loss caused to the institution. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted seat in the information technology in the opposite partyno.2 college in the year 2004 and paid Rs.22,000/- towards the tuition fee for the first year of the course. Feeling dissatisfied with the education facilities provided by the opposite party no.2 and the environment provided in the classroom not compatible, the complainant appeared for AIEEE 2005 and secured rank of 2429 in the examination and got seat in NIT, Regional Engineering College, Warangal. The complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to cancel his admission and retu...

Sathupathi Amaravathi Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)ALT625

ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus with a direction to the respondents to produce the detenu Sathupathi Ramesh @ Mallesh holding that his detention by virtue of orders in Ref. No. C1/672/09 dated 26-09-2009 of the 1st respondent-District Collector and Magistrate, Kadapa, as confirmed by G.O.Rt. No. 5206 General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department dated 30-10-2009, as illegal and void and to set him at liberty.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records, including the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner.3. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Sathupathi Ramesh @ Mallesh, who was detained by an order dated 26-09-2009 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 3(1) and (2) read with Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the A.P. Prev...

Kotha Ramakanth and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)ALT618

ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. (i) W.P. No. 12657 of 2009 is filed by way of public interest litigation seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in extending time to the un-official respondent No. 3 in connection with the sale of Ac.28.01 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 848, 849, 376 and 877 of Narsapur Shivar village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizatnabad district as per the auction conducted on 28.01.2003, as illegal, arbitrary and against the public interest and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to effect registration of the said land in favour of the 3rd respondent.(ii) W.P. No. 12331 of 2009 is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P. No. 12657 of 2009, who is the auction purchaser, seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent-The Nizam Sugars Limited (Government Company) [for short 'the Company'] in not executing the registered sale deed in his favour pursuant to the sale letter dated 03.06.2009, as illegal, void and arbitrary and ...

D. Shankar Vs. A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by Its Registrar and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT179

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. As all Writ Petitions are interconnected they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner-applicant in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms. No. 169, dated 21.6.2004, G.O.Rt. No. 556 dated 25.5.2005, the order dated 23.3.2006 passed in appeal Memo No. 4530/VC(1)/2006-1 and the order dated 15.10.2009 passed in O.A. No. 2379 of 2006 with V.M.A. No. 1177 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal.3. Writ Petition No. 4328 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner-applicant in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Orders passed in O.A. No. 154 of 2007 (Common order in O.A. No. 2379 of 2006) dated 15.10.2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal.4. Writ Petition No. 4961 of 2010 has been filed by the Government, H...

Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd and Another Vs. Dr. K. Balakrishna and Anot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Mahabubnagar in C.C.No.34 of 2006 whereby the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were directed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant and pay interest @ 18% on Rs.3,40,000/- from 1.2.2006 and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 were directed to delete the terms and conditions no.6,7,9,14,15,21 and 22 in Exs.A2 and B1, application form in their future business transactions. The complaint against the opposite party no.3 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case as represented by the complainant are that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme conducted by the opposite partis no.1 and 2. The opposite parties allotted plot no.202 and 242 to an extent of 200 sq.yards at Nanakram Guda Village of Sherlingampally Mandal, R.R.Dist. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,40,402/- on differen...