Andhra Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments

B.V. Ratnam and Another Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Spl. Public Pros ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Judgment: Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 26.07.2005 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada in C.C.No.15 of 1998. 2. Criminal Appeal No.1251 of 2005 is filed by B.V.Ratnam, the then Joint Sub-Registrar-II, who was the first accused before the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.1294 of 2005 is filed by K.Ram Mohan Rao, the then Senior Assistant in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Guntur, who was the second accused before the trial Court. 3. Both the appellants were tried by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases for the following charges: CHARGE NO.1: “That both A1 and A2 on 25.07.1994 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servant under-valued the market value of site of an extent of 8470 sq. yards at Nallapadu from Rs.100/- to Rs.60/- and caused wrongful loss to the government to a tune of Rs.38,985/- by collecting lesser stamp duty and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and th...

Madhucon-sino Hydro Jv, Rep. by Its Authorized Signatory and Another V ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions are filed by three bidders who filed their tenders for a project by name “Indira Sagar Polavaram Project” (ISPP) which was proposed to be constructed at an estimated cost of Rs.4717/- crores on an EPC-Turn Key basis. As per the procedure envisaged in the tender conditions, the bids shall be in two parts, namely, technical bid and price bid. The technical bids of six bidders were opened on 5-7-2012, including that of the three petitioners herein and M/s. Soma-CGGC JV, impleaded as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.22664/2012 and respondent No.5 in W.P.No.23047/2012. The petitioners, on coming to know that their technical bids were rejected, filed these Writ Petitions assailing the disqualification of their technical bids mainly on the ground that no reasons have been assigned by the State Government and its officials involved in the evaluation of the bids for disqualifying their technical bids. When these Writ Petitions came up for hearing, the lea...

M/S. thermal Systems (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Senior Vice Pr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD683

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of 1st respondent in passing orders in O.P.No.39 to 54 of 2011 even dt: 17-01-2012, purportedly determining and approving Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the financial year 2009-2010 (April, 2009 to March, 2010) and the consequential action of respondents 2 to 8 in issuing paper publication dt: 25-06-2012 notifying the said fuel surcharge adjustment for the year 2009-2010 enabling to collect from the petitioner company, as unauthorized, contrary to Regulation No.1 of 2003 issued by 1st respondent, the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the judgment in Writ Appeal No.858 of 2011 and batch, besides violating petitioners rights guaranteed under Art.14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution of India and set aside t...

K.V. Krishna Rao Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by the Principal Secretar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD650

(Prayers: Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Memo No.75921/Endts.IV(1)/2000, dt.25/08/03 of the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)Endowments-IV Department and quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to recognise the petitioner as a member of the founder’s family as per the wishes of the founders of Sri Mahalaxmamma Temple and Sri Kamisetti Sunder Ramaiah Setty Choltry situated in Nawabpet, Nellore. WPMP. NO. 6407 OF 2012: Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to submit additional documents in W.P.No.21772 of 2003). 1. The petitioner, who is no other than the ad...

Pramod Shyamlal Jee Shahu and Another Vs. the State, Through Railway P ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(Petition under Section 437 and 439 of the Crl.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition/Affidavit/Memorandum of grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 herein in Crime No.137 of 2012 of Railways Police Station, Bellampally, Adilabad District.) When the petitioners presented the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, it was returned for presentation before proper Court having territorial jurisdiction. When the same petition was presented before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad, it was again returned stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application, as II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, remanded the accused and as the said Magistrate is within the control of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The order returning bail application by Sessions Judge, Adilabad is erroneous. 2) The petitioners ...

Mohd.Hamed Sharief and Another Vs. Mohd.Khaled Sharief and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common order: C.R.P.No.3431 of 2012 is directed against the order dated 14.06.2012 in I.A.No.188 of 2012 in O.S.No.2159 of 2009, on the file of the III-Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, defendants 2 and 3, under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.3432 of 2012 is directed against the order dated 14.06.2012 in I.A.No.289 of 2012 in the same suit, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence, was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. The 1st respondents/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendants from the schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rents and mesne profits. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit is commenced. The plaintiff was e...

K.V. Krishna Rao Vs. Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.21772 o31. 07.2012 K.V. Krishna Rao The State of A.P., Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Govt.,Revenue (End.IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. Counsel for Petitioner : Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Endowments ^Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri Karthik Pavan Kumar Representing Sri S. Srinivas Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred ORDER : The petitioner, who is no other than the adopted son of Smt. K. Hymavathamma, the 4th respondent herein, is challenging the recognition granted in her favour as Founder Trustee per orders Rc.not A1/4682/96, dated 1.10.1996 of the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Nellore, which was concurrently confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupati, and the 1st respondent-State Government vide R.P.No.20 of 1999, dated 17.6.2000 and Memo.No.75921/Endts.IV(1)/2000, ...

Pramod Shyamlal Jee Shahu and Another Vs. the State, Through Railway P ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5876 o31. 07.2012 Pramod Shyamlal Jee Shahu and another The State, through Railway Police Station rep., by Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S. Rahul Counsel for Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor : : Cases referred: ORDER : When the petitioners presented the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, it was returned for presentation before proper Court having territorial jurisdiction. When the same petition was presented before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad, it was again returned stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application, as II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, remanded the accused and as the said Magistrate is within the control of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The order returning bail application by Sessions Judge, Adilabad is erroneous. 2) The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and...

M/S. thermal Systems (Hyderabad) Pvt. Lt Vs. Andhra Pradesh Electricit ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.19359 of 2012 and Batch 31-07-2012 +W.P.No.19359 of 2012: M/s. Thermal Systems (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Senior Vice President (Finance),IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Chairman, Red Hills, Hyderabad and others HEAD NOTE: Counsel for the petitioner:Mr. C. Kodandaram Senior Counsel Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putturi ^Counsel for R.2 to R.6: Mr. N. Sridhar Reddy Spl. G.P. for Advocate General ?CASES REFERRED:1. 2012 (2) ALD 73.2) (2004) 2 SCC 74.3) 2004 (1) SCC 71.4) (2000) 6 SCC 35.(Writ Petition Nos.19359, 21928, 22177, 22193, 22601, 22602, 22603, 22605, 22606, 22798, 22797, 22816, 22817, 22818, 22819, 22832, 22833, 22939, 22943, 22944, 22945, 22951, 22952, 22953, 22959, 22964, 22965, 22966, 22967, 22968, 22992, 22993, 23002, 23003, 23024, 22960, 23058, 23207, 23208, 23211, 23240, 23267, 23275, 23277, 23279, 23283, 23284, 23287, 23288, 232...

Nunna Ravi Babu Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.136/2009 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants father during his life time took a policy bearing No.0033454550 in Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain Plan for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- through 2nd opposite party and received Rs.50,000/- as premium for 1st year and issued the policy on 23-12-2006. The complainant submitted that prior to the issuing of the policy, the 2nd opposite party personnel enquired about the health and other particulars and after thorough satisfaction issued the policy. The complainant submitted that his father died on 10-3-2007 and never suffered any disease and made a claim to the opposite party being the nominee along with relevant documents. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties issued a letter dated 05-11-2007 to the complainant alleging that the insured suffered from deflated nasal se...