Andhra Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments

T. Venkata Sateesh Vs. Dasari Suhasini and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner who is husband seeks transfer of D.V.C.No.86 of 2011 from IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Secunderabad where O.P.No.611 of 2012 is pending for divorce. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’) as enabling provision for the relief claimed herein. Section 26 of the Act reads as follows: “26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings: - (1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or cr...

Zaraninagar Z. Adam Vs. D. Kamalakar Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 09-03-2012, in IA.No.372 of 2010 in OS.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. The petitioner is the defendant in the above-mentioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money.  The said suit was decreed ex parte on 08-12-2009.  The petitioner filed IA.No.372 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for setting aside the ex parte decree.  The said application was allowed by the lower Court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the decretal amount on or before 09-04-2012.  Assailing this order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. I have heard Mr.O.Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that the Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the lower Co...

The Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Secr Vs. G.Sanjeevi and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.A.Nos. 204 of 2012 and Batch (W.A.Nos.204, 205, 206, 235, 236, 237, 238 and 239 of 2012, W.P.Nos.8318, 1864, 12321, 13934 and 14310 of 2008, W.P.Nos.11660, 12489, 13129, 13065, 14519,16485 and 22649 of 2009, W.P.No.13381 of 2010, W.P.Nos.13672, 21581, 27028, 28066, 28554, 29008, 29294, 29339 and 31896 of 2011) 07-06-2012 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others G.Sanjeevi and others Counsel for the Appellants: Sri G.P. for Social Welfare Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G.Simhadri : : ?Cases referred 1. 2002 (2) ALT 7.(F.B.) 2. 2010 (11) SCC 73.3. 2011 (2) SCC 42.COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals and writ petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. The writ appeals are filed by the State, represented by its Secretary, Tribal W...

G.A. Nagaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Order: All the petitioners are the tenants of different municipal shops near Gandhi Chowk, Old Municipal High School, Hindupur, Anantapur District. By the impugned proceedings in ROC.No.2289/2010-A1 dated 9.1.2012, issued by the 4th respondent - Hindupur Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, the petitioners were directed to vacate from their respective shops within fifteen days. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 2. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were initially granted lease by the 4th respondent - Municipality and by virtue of collecting enhanced rents at the rate of 33 1/3 % as envisaged under Rule 12(h) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968, (for short ‘the Rules’),they were allowed to continue in their respective shops for the last about fif...

Mutyala Geeta Bai and Others Vs. Ch.Ram Kumar and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 17.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No.713 of 1999. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 3. Challenge to the order in the appeal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate, not properly computed and requires enhancement. 4. Mutyala Rajender, hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ was working as Assistant Engineer and he died in the accident, which occurred on 31.07.1999. His salary as per Ex.A.10 salary certificate produced by the claimants was Rs.9,659/-. As per Ex.A.8, SSC certificate his date of birth was 30.03.1962 and the learned tribunal rightly considered his age basing on the said certificate as 39 years, made 1/3rd deduction, applied multiplier ‘16’ and arrived at compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- payable with interest @ 9...

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Samala Agaiah and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD322

COMMON JUDGMENT:- 1. These two appeals arise out of the order, dated 21.02.2005, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.782 of 2003. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3677 of 2005 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which was the second respondent before the Tribunal below, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.3714 of 2005 is filed by the claimant. 3. I have heard Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri P.Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Limited. 4. The deceased Samala Vittal, who was said to be a Weaver, was aged 55 years on the date of his death in the accident. He was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 15 V 2574 at Thangallapalli bridge on 09.01.2003. The said auto turned turtle as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased, who was one of the passengers, sustained severe injuries in the said accident. Initially, he was shif...

Modern Gynaec and Maternity Hospital, Rep. by Dr.Dhaneti Sridhar, M.D. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.33/2007 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, opposite party preferred appeal, F.A.No.1384/2010 and the complainant preferred appeal F.A.No.501/2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants wife approached the opposite party on 11-4-2006 for her gynaec problem and opposite party after check up suggested that the patient should undergo operation. The complainant submitted that he asked the opposite party first to conduct Biopsy but the opposite party conducted operation on the wife of the complainant on 25-4-2006. The complainant submitted that his wifes position turned more worse and she suffered from Giddiness and waist pain etc., soon after the operation but the opposite party was on camp and the nurses attended on the patient and discharged on 30-4-2006. The complainant submitted that on ...

M/S.Bajaj Finance, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, C/O.Padmini Bajaj, Auth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.46/2010 on the file of District Forum, Mahaboobnagar, opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Bajaj Discover 125 CC Motor cycle under hire purchase scheme with the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that the total cost of the vehicle was Rs.56,000/- and the opposite parties provided finance to a tune of Rs.33,000/- and the complainant has to pay the said amount in 18 EMIs at Rs.2,065/- commencing from June, 2007 and he paid an amount of Rs.23,000/- towards down payment and handed over 18 post dated cheques. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties encahsed Rs.12,390/- through 6 post dated cheques and he paid Rs.4,830/- in cash to the authorized signatory of the opposite parties and in total an amount of Rs.17,220/- was paid. The complainant submitted that he used the vehicle for 14 months only and due to problems in his agr...

Govt. of A.P., Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, School Education Depar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Order:(G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) In all these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. In these writ petitions, assailed common order dated 21.9.2011 passed in O.A.Nos.6565 and 3492 of 2011 and batch, common order passed in O.A.No.4356 of 2011 and batch dated 28.9.2011 and order passed in O.A.No.4591 of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad so far as related to those specified applications respectively. The petitioners in all these petitions are the respondents and the respondents in these petitions are the applicants in the corresponding Original Applications before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Applications. The common order dated 21.9.2011 covers two sets of applications. Here the concern is limited to...

M/S. Gita Cotton Trading Company, Chilakaluripet Vs. the Chief Control ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner, as its name suggests, is a company doing business in cotton, as part of its activity. It advanced fairly large amount to M/s. Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company, Chilakaluripet. Since the borrower did not discharge its obligation, the petitioner filed O.S.No.299 of 1988 in the Court of Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Guntur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,59,196/-, with future interest. A compromise was arrived at between the parties. In terms thereof, a decree was passed on 05.02.1990. The terms of compromise were to the effect that the borrower i.e. the defendant in the suit, shall lease out the premises and machinery mentioned in the schedule, in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of 21 years, at an annual rent of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was also mentioned that the lease can be extended at the request of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years with an increase of the rent by 15%. Other conditions, pertaining to breach of contract, were also incorporated. The...