Andhra Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments

Ram Kishore Rathi and Another Vs. M/S.Mahavir Builders, Rep. by Partne ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants were lured by the canvassing of opposite party No.1 that it acquired land admeasuring 15800 sq. yds. in Survey No.75 situated at Sri Rama Lingeshwaranagar, Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and will construct a residential complex and the offer to the complainants of a flat of 1500 sft. at a concessional price i.e. if they make an advance payment of Rs.33,00,000/-. Opposite parties further agreed to hand over the possession of the flat by completing the same in all respects on or before 31-3-2011. The complainants submitted that they were attracted by this scheme floated by the opposite parties of giving the flat at a concessional price i.e. Rs.33,00,000/- (to be paid in lumpsum) and agreed to purchase the said flat and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 3-3-2008 and paid Rs.33,00,000/- by six cheques detailed as follows:Shika R.Rathi15/12/2007Ch.No.88...

Modali Eswara Prasad Vs. the Union of India, Rep.by Secretary and Othe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT2; 2012(5)ALD420

(Prayer: Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and direct the respondents not to share the progress or updating of the investigation concerning the Crime No. R.C. No. 19 (A)/2011- CBI- Hyderabad, dated: 17.08.2011 with the electronic or print media, except in accordance with the law and the CBI manual i.e by way of release of Press Note in connection with the investigation of Crime No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad, dated: 17-08-2011.) 1. By this Public Interest Litigation petitioner, in effect, seeks a direction against the respondents that they should not share the progress or material which came to light during investigation of crime No.R.C.No.19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad, dated 17.08.2011, with electronic or print media in any other manner, except release through ...

S. Naga Lingeswar Rao Vs. J. Venkoba Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD238

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 07.06.2011 in O.S.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Anantapur District, whereby he has refused to mark gift deed dated 01.11.2006, presented by the petitioner, in evidence. The respondent filed O.S.No.71 of 2008 for declaration that he is the sole legal heir of late Parvathi Bai, w/o. Pullaiah, and entitled to receive the amount deposited by her in Monthly Income Scheme A/c.No.40093 in Sub-Post Office, Yadiki in preference and excluding the nominee, who is the defendant in the suit. He also sought for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from claiming the said amount as nominee. During the trial, the petitioner, who is the defendant, sought to mark gift deed, dated 01.11.2006, wherein Smt.J.Parvathi Bai purportedly gifted the amount lying in Account No.40093, with respect to which the respondent filed the suit. When an objection was raised by the respondent to the admissibility o...

M/S. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Repr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited (hereafter, the manufacturer) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Lizol (floor cleaner), Harpic (toilet cleaner) and Mortein mosquito repellents. Whether these goods are exigible to value added tax @ 4% under entry 20 of Schedule IV to the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 (the VAT Act)? This question falls for consideration in the tax revision case filed under Section 34 of the VAT Act and in all the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The essential fact of the matter for proper appreciation of the issue is as follows. Mortein mosquito repellents, Lizol and Harpic are statedly household products manufactured by M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited having registered office at Okla Industrial Estate, New Delhi and branches all over India. After introduction of the VAT, they made an application under Section 67 of the VAT Act to the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) seeking clarification as to the rate of tax...

M/S. Heritage Furniture Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. Sri Manda Venkatesw ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam in allowing the complaint on the ground that no opportunity was given to it to file vakalath of the advocate or contest before the District Forum. It is an undisputed fact that the advocate appearing for the appellant has given an undertaking that he would file vakalath on the next day i.e. on 15-7-2011 since he did not file vakalath, the District Forum pronounced its orders on 22-7-2011. In the mean time, the petitioner thought of filing an application to set aside exparte order but his counsel informed that the District Forum has no jurisdiction. For whatever reason, the appellant did not contest the matter. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that one more chance could be given for the appellant to contest the matter before the District Forum. In the light of the circumstances stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order of...

Madharapu Prashu Ram Vs. Shaik Janibhee and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Aggrieved by the orders dated 22.09.2010 passed in Criminal M.P.No. 2756 of 2010 in M.C.No. 10 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The petitioner herein is the alleged husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent.  For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The petitioners filed M.C.No. 10 of 2010 under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C claiming maintenance against the respondent. According to the averments in the petition, the first petitioner is wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent.  The respondent in the month of December 2005, asked the first petitioner to marry him. Since the respondent already having wife and children, the first petitioner refused to marry him.  The respondent said that he is having Ac. 6.00 wet land and out of same, he gave Ac. 3.00 to his wife and divorc...

Tai Nagaratnam and Others Vs. M. Sulochanadevi and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Order: These two civil revision petitions arise out of similar but separate orders passed by the lower Court whereby it has dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendants in O.S.No.798 of 1980 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada which is at the stage of final decree proceedings. Despite service of notice on respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff and who obtained a preliminary decree for partition, she has not entered appearance. At the hearing, no one represented respondent No.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts in both the cases are similar. Hence, it will suffice to state in brief the facts in C.R.P.No.848 of 2012. The petitioners claimed that the husband of petitioner No.1 purchased a part of the suit schedule property from respondent No.4. During his lifetime, the husband of petitioner No.1 had constructed a house and the entire family had been living therein. After his death...

M/S Indus Towers Limited, Rep by Sri P.Ramakanth, Deputy General Manag ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings ADC Order No.2169 in appeal Nos. BV/94/2010-11 dated 07-10-2011 confirming the order of penalty dated 14-10-2011 passed by the 1st respondent for the year 2009-10/CST/Penalty as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.) (The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings ADC Order No.2169 in appeal Nos. BV/70/2009-10 dated 07-10-2011 confirming the order of penalty dated 05-10-2009 passed by the 1st respondent for the year 2008-09/CST/Penalty as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and co...

Karnati Nageswara Rao, Guntur District Vs. the Dist. Collector, (Cs) G ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT38; 2012(5)ALD679

(Prayer: Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to suspended the orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No. 1282/2003-G dated 10.12.2009 and consequential orders passed by the 1st resopondent in Revision Case No.4/20120-S7 dated and order of the 2nd respondent in ACD Dis.No. 1/2010-S7 Dated 3.3.2010 by permitting the petitioner to Yerrabalem village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.) Unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge dated 24.4.2012 dismissing WP No. 23116 of 2010. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders of District Collector (CS), Guntur and Joint Collector, Guntur (respondents 1 and 2 respectively) confirming the order of 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur by which the authorization of Fair Price Shop dealer-appellant was cancelled. The appellant was the Fair Price Shop dealer appointed in 2000 a...

M/S the New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Hyderabad Region, Rep. by Its Reg ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the order of the District Forum in directing it to pay Rs.8,41,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from 28-3-2006 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the mother of Nallavelu Sekhar Reddy, who purchased Ashok Leyland Tusker Super 2214 and got it insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- covering the period from 18-2-2005 to 17-2-2006. While so, it met with an accident on 236-2005. The owner who was driving the vehicle died while some other passengers had sustained injuries. On intimation, a surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and on his permission, the vehicle was shifted to Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, which gave quotation for Rs.9,41,459/- towards cost of spare parts and Rs.53,790/- towards labour charges in all Rs.9,95,249/-. The insurance company repudiate...