Andhra Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments

Malayanauru Anantha Anandacharyulu @ Narayanacharyulu Vs. the State of ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the orders dated 14-02-2012 registering C.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur and further quash C.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.) The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 191/193 I.P.C. 2) The petitioner is the first informant in Crime No.105 of 2006 of Ponnur Town Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 143, 348, 353/149 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in that crime as C.C. No.39 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnur. After trial, the Magistrate pronounced acquittal of all the accused in C.C. No.39 of 2007. During trial of that case, the petitioner was examined as P.W-1 and he turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the version...

M/S. Raghava Constructions, Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Chitram Movies, Hyderab ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 18-02-2010 in O.S.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, in somewhat extraordinary circumstances, against the judgment and decree passed in the suit instituted for specific performance of agreement of sale. 2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and so was the defendant. The defendant owned a house property situated at Road No.17 of Jubilee Hills locality at Hyderabad, standing on a plot of land of an extent of 1147 sq.yds. The defendant has purchased the said house property through a registered sale deed bearing No.5426/2002 executed on 27.09.2002. The said house property was offered for sale for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,31,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Thirty One Lakhs Only) and accepting the same the plaintiff firm paid an amount of R...

Mohd. Abdul Muqeeth Vs. the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the representation of petitioner to take action against the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the house bearing No.10-2-347/B/51/A, constructed in an area of 82 square yards situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said property is purchased by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.2970/2008, dated 08.07.2008, from Mrs.Yasmeen Hussain wife of Mohd. Abdul Razzak, represented by respondent No.3 herein, who is none other than her father. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that between the house of petitioner and respondent No.3, there is a common passage, on which, the 3rd respondent has constructed a ramp. It is stated that such construction is contrary to the understanding between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and inspite of bringing it to the not...

Tsr Anjaneyulu (Thota Seetha Ram Anjaneyulu) Vs. the Telegraph Traffic ...

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 complainant and his wife T.Rukmini jointly invested Rs.20,00,000/- in opposite party no.1 society towards fixed deposits with a promised interest of 14% p.a. to be paid in monthly instalments. The society issued F.D.Rs. on their names jointly on either or survivor basis as follows: i) On Deposit No.2398 dated 05-1-2004 for Rs.2,50,000/- ii) On Deposit No.2887 dated 05-10-2006 for Rs.7,50,000/- iii) On Deposit No.3127 dated 11-12-2006 for Rs.10,00,000/- Total Rs.20,00,000/- =========== The complainant submits that he received monthly interest, the details of which are as follows: i) Deposit No.2398 dated 5-1-2004 for Rs.2,50,000/- received interest from 05-1-2004 to 30-11-2007 ii) Deposit No.2887 dated 05-10-2006 for Rs.7,50,000/- received interest from 05-10-2006 to 30-11-2007 iii) Deposit No.3127 dated 11-12-2006 for Rs.10,00,000/- received interest from 11-12-2006 to 30-11-2007 Thereafter...

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Its Principal Secreta ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(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 relating to the orders of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.660/2012, dated 05.03.2012 and quash the same as being erroneous in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and facts of the case.) Common Order:(G. Krishna Mohan Reddy, J.) These two writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the same order dated 05.3.2012 of the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.660 of 2012. The said O.A. was filed by Smt.Palla Venkata Ratnam, Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO/DSP), Ramachandrapuram, Medak District (hereafter, the applicant) against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Director General of Police (DGP), the Superintendent of ...

Nagarala Nirvasithula Welfare Association Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and Ot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner is an Association of persons of Nagarala Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The entire village of Nagarala came under submergence, as part of Bheema Irrigation Project of Rangasamudram Balancing Reservoir. Apart from the land, 264 houses were also effected. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 26.07.2008. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 09.09.2008. An award was passed on 18.02.2009 through which compensation was awarded for the structures alone. No compensation was paid for the land on which the houses were constructed. The petitioner contends that there was no justification for the respondents in denying the compensation for the land on which houses were constructed. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that draft notification and draft declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the...

Nagarala Nirvasithula Welfare Associatio Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and Oth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.553 o09. 07.2012 Nagarala Nirvasithula Welfare Association. The Govt. of A.P. and others. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Gangarami Reddy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition HEAD NOTE: Cases referred:1. 1959(2) M.L.J....

Kalvala Padma and Others Vs. the Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Princ ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD473

(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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 to refer the cases of the petitioners to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation by duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not referring their cases to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act even though they have filed applications dt.08.04.1991 on 12.04.1991 within limitation for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding disposal of Petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.) The petitioners are ow...

Paruchuri Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. Addl. Director General of Police and O ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Writ Petition is filed challenging notice dated 17.01.2012 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent whereunder and whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent with all relevant documents and connected papers in person on 20.01.2012. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Visweshwara Infrastructure Private Limited. By virtue of the directions of the first respondent vide C.No.9468/C34/CID/2011, dated 30.12.2011, the second respondent was nominated as enquiry officer to conduct inquiry on the complaint lodged by respondents 3 to 6 against one M/s. Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Private Limited, the petitioner and others. The second respondent has taken up the inquiry into the matter and proposed to examine the petitioner as a witness to ascertain the facts of the complaint within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that except the impugned notice, he was not furnished either with a copy of the di...

M/S.Ashoka Travels, Rep. by Its Khurshid Ali Vs. the Asst. Secretary, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo No.965/C3/HE/2012, dated 28-06-2012, issued by respondent No.1 and to issue a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to release the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP/11Y 4926 seized under Vehicle Check Report No.1736582, dated 26-02-2012. I have heard Mr.B.Siva Rama Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents. The petitioner holds a State Wide Contract Carriage Permit. On 26-06-2012, his vehicle referred to above was seized by respondent No.2 under a check report wherein the following allegations were made: 1. As per my enquiry with the driver and passengers travelling in the vehicle, there was no express or implied contract between the owner of the vehicle and passengers. The vehicle is not engaged as whole. All the individual passengers going for different purposes. Thus, found the vehicle being misused as st...