Andhra Pradesh Court March 2012 Judgments

Sri Bhaktanjaneya Swamy Vari Devalayam T Vs. 1) to Whom So Ever It May ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5784 of 2010 and 394 o20. 3-2012 Sri Bhaktanjaneya Swamy Vari Devalayam Trust, Tekulapalli,Khammam District, represented by its Chairman Sri Bondili Dharma Singh 1) To whom so ever it may concern 2) Vakadani Ramanarayana and others Counsel for petitioner : Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel Sri V.L.N. Gopalakrishna Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : -- Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent No.3 : -- Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri G.M. Mohiuddin Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri A.S.C. Bose CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 200.S.C....

Ch.Venkanna Vs. the Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)war

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7626 o20. 03.2012 Ch.Venkanna The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)Warangal, Warangal District & two others. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Civil Supplies Gist: Head Note: CITATIONS:1. 2011 (1) ALT 48.ORDER This writ petition is filed by a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, challenging the validity of the orders passed on 31st December, 2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad suspending with immediate effect the authorization issued in favour of the writ petitioner for running and maintaining a fair price shop as he was involved in a criminal case, pursuant to which he was suspended and remanded to judicial custody for 18 days. The case of the petitioner is that he was a regular fair price shop dealer of Shop No.40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, and he was...

The Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Res Vs. Ramavarapu Bhoolokam (Die ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.1373 o20. 03-2012 The Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram Ramavarapu Bhoolokam (died) and twenty others HEAD NOTE: Counsel for the petitioner : The Government Pleader for Arbitration Counsel for the respondents : Sri M.S. Ramachandrarao CASES REFERRED: --- Order: This is an extra-ordinary case where on an affidavit of the Advocate for the claimants in an interlocutory application purportedly filed under Sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short "CPC"), the decree, dated 27.06.1988, in O.P.No.263 of 1986, was amended by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as under: Certain lands were acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project under a Notification, dated 13.05.1981, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act"). The Land Acquisition Officer h...

Baby Akinapalli Nikhitha Vs. Nazeer Baig and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(4)ALD612; 2012(5)ALT466

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 06-10-1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Karimnagar in OP.No. 65 of 1996. 2. Challenge to the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it was grossly inadequate and has not been computed properly. Since the question arises for consideration in this appeal is only as to the quantum of compensation, the other issues need not be adverted to. 3. The facts of the case are that Baby Akinapalli Nikhitha, was aged 4 years on the date of accident. On 13-04-1995 at about 04:00 p.m. in Gollapalli village in Karimnagar district, a lorry bearing No. AP-12-T-1155, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, ran over her due to which she sustained grievous injuries, which include crush injury to the left hand. Ultimately her left hand was amputated below the shoulder level and she became permanently disabled. On her behalf, her next friend...

Chelluboyina Satyanarayana Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by Its Public P ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

COMMON ORDER: 1. These two Criminal Petitions have been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.36 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, to quash the proceeding therein. 2.   Background facts, in a nutshell, are: Chavakula Venkata Subba Raju filed a complaint on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, on 19.01.2006, alleging, inter alia, that Chelluboyina Satyanarayana-A1 is the father of Chelluboyina Suresh Kumar-A2. They approached him with a request to advance a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of higher education of the latter in United States of America. He acceded to their request and advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.04.2005 and Rs.15,00,000/- on 21.04.2005. The father and the son promised to pay back the amount within a month. After repeated requests and reminders, the son issued a cheque bearing No.563526, dated 21.07.2005, for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on IN...

P. Ramanaiah and Others Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Though this matter is listed in the Interlocutory matters, since both the learned counsel have agreed for the disposal of the main writ petition itself, this writ petition is being disposed of. The petitioners, in this writ petition, seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering their case for the post of Volunteers in respondent’s Annadanam Canteen or any other posts as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint them by giving preference to their experience. Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is as follows. 10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issu...

S.B.Tirumal Raj Vs. Lakshmi Prasanna

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 31.12.2011, in O.P.No.619 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. Even though notice was served on the respondent and acknowledgement in proof thereof is filed by the petitioner’s counsel along with memo, dated 09.03.2012, no one entered appearance for the respondent. The short issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the presence of the petitioner is necessary for grant of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, as he is presently residing in UK. He along with the respondent, who is his wife, presented an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, on 21.04.2011. After expiry of the statutory minimum period of six months, the case was posted on 31.12.2011. On the said date, the respondent and the Special Power of ...

Sri S.B.Tirumal Raj Vs. Smt.Lakshmi Prasanna

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.875 o19. 03.2012 Sri S.B.Tirumal Raj Smt.Lakshmi Prasanna Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.A.Qureshi Counsel for the respondent: --- Gist: Head note: Cases referred:1995. 3) ALD 34.(DB) ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 31.12.2011, in O.P.No.619 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. Even though notice was served on the respondent and acknowledgement in proof thereof is filed by the petitioner's counsel along with memo, dated 09.03.2012, no one entered appearance for the respondent. The short issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the presence of the petitioner is necessary for grant of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, as he is presently residing in UK. He along with the respondent, who is his wife, prese...

M. Pandu Vs. the General Manager, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the order dt.6.8.2010 in C.C.No.41/2010 on the file of District Forum, Mahabubnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was selected for assistance under Rajiv Yuvasakthi Scheme and he was informed that he can take a loan from A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank. According to the said Scheme no surety is necessary to be given by the member who avails the loan. But the Manager of A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank demanded surety from the complainant that for a loan of Rs.37,500/- and took the original title deed of a plot admeasuring 200 sq.yards, as security. On account of the original sale deed being held up with the Bank, the complainant was not able to sell the said plot when there was real estate boom in the market. Further opposite parties charged 14% interest instead of 12% which is contrary to the Bank rules and loan agreement and also against the Reserve Bank Rules which amounts to def...

The Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member ) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.41/2005 on the file of District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy, the complainant preferred F.A.No.275/2011, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred F.A.No.525/2010, opposite party No.3 preferred F.A.No.277/2011 and opposite party No.5 preferred F.A.No.503/2010. Since all these appeals arise out of common C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants son, one Mukunda Reddy, aged 23 years suffered from severe stomach pain and was taken to Gajanan hospital on 18-2-2004 and opposite parties 1 and 2 examined the patient and advised x-ray and blood test reports. After examining the x-ray and blood test reports, opposite parties 1 and 2 called opposite party No.3 who is consulting doctor and opposite party No.3 conducted the surgery on the patient without examining x-ray report. The complainant submits that the surgery was performed for appendiciti...