Andhra Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments

G.Prabhakar and 14 Others. Vs. Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.21602 o18. 7-2012 G.Prabhakar and 14 others. Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar District and 3 others. HEAD NOTE: Counsel for the petitioners: Sri T.Mahender Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies ?CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 196.S.C....

The Narayana General Hospital, Rep. by Its Superintendent/Medical Offi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.80/2007 on the file of District Forum, Nellore, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, a vegetable vendor, went to opposite party hospital on 25-4-2006 for taking treatment for her obesity. B.P. and other tests were done but no medicines were prescribed. On the next date, the doctor prescribed some medicines and after consuming the same, she developed allergy on an injection given to her. The complainant submitted that as her condition became worse, she approached Dr. Lakshmi, Pogathota Nellore and later Peoples Poli Clinic, Nellore and as her condition became worse, she went to Government General Hospital, Chennai wherein the doctors removed her left hand upto shoulder to save her life. The complainant submitted that she took treatment as inpatient at Chennai for three months and to avoid danger to her life, her left hand was amputated and all this ...

Tirumala Devi Eada and Others Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Law (La ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA and J SC.F) Department dated 16 Nov 11 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law wholly unconstitutinal and quash the same as such and consequently quash the notification dated 22 Dec 11 prepared by the 2nd Respondent as illegal and contrary to law and consequently or/and in the alternative declare that the amendment issued vide G.O.Ms.No.132 Law (LA and J SC. F) department dated 16 Nov 11 is only prospective in nature and shall not be made applicable to the selection process already started pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 19.8.010 issued by the 1st Respondent for appointment to 18 District and Sessions Judges and consequently direct the respondents to prepare a fresh select list of recruit...

Smt. Konduru Padmavathi Vs. District Collector and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT606; 2012(5)ALD589

(Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order, dated 29-12-2011 in WP No.17621 of 2011 on the file of the High Court.) Acting Chief Justice This Writ Appeal by the petitioner is filed against the Order dated 29.12.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.17621 of 2011. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: The appellant-writ petitioner is the owner of Ac.20.30 cents of land comprised in various survey numbers of Menakur Village, Naidupet Mandal, Nellore District. The State authority issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) on 12.1.2007 and proposed to acquire the said land under the impugned notification for the purpose of establishment of an industrial park. The appellant challenged the said notification on the ground that the Respondent No.3 being a company, the procedure envisaged in Part VII of the LA Act has not been followed, therefore, the whole la...

Chakali Narayanappa Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Anantapu ...

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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the Docket order of the first respondent dt. 27.6.2012 in unnumbered E.P in ID No.300/05 and to issue a consequential direction to the first Respondent to number and entertain the E.P filed by the petitioner in ID No.300/05 and to proceed with the same in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the docket order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereby the un-numbered Execution Petition filed by him in I.D. No.300 of 2005 was returned. He seeks a direction to the said Court to number and entertain the said Execution Petition in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 as a JSS Attendant in Nizam Sugars Limited at Hindu...

Konduru Padmavathi Vs. District Collector, Nellore District and

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.489 OF 201.17-7-2012 Konduru Padmavathi District Collector, Nellore District and others COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Mrs. A. Anasuya COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2: G.P. for Land Acquisition COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3: Sri P. Roy Reddy GIST HEAD NOTE: CITATIONS 1 (2008) 9 SCC 55.2. (2011) 10 SCC 60.JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) This Writ Appeal by the petitioner is filed against the Order dated 29.12.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.17621 of 2011. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: The appellant-writ petitioner is the owner of Ac.20.30 cents of land comprised in various survey numbers of Menakur Village, Naidupet Mandal, Nellore District. The State authority issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') on 12.1.2007 and proposed to acqui...

Venna Chenchu Lakshmamma Vs. the Branch Manager, Tata Aig, My Home Tyc ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in CC 188/2008 on the file of District Forum, Prakasam at Ongole, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the wife of late Pedda Gali Reddy and opposite party no.4 is the son. Late Pedda Gali Reddy entered into an agreement with Road Safety Club Private Limited i.e. opposite party no.2 and obtained 3 Accidental Death Benefit Policies each for Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party no.1 insurance company for the period from 25-4-2004 to 24-4-2005. When the three policies were in force under the scheme of Master policy, the deceased was murdered on 26-2-2005, an FIR was registered and the criminal case ended in acquittal. Thereafter the complainants son informed opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 about the death and submitted the claim form but did not receive any response. Hence the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the claim amount of Rs.9,0...

United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Kesar Silks ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.90/2010 on the file of District Forum Anantapur, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant has insured his shop selling sarees and dress materials with the opposite party for the period 23-4-2009 to 23-4-2010. On 10-12-2009 in the process of Andhra agitation, some agitators pelted stones on the shop and the glass panel and glass door were completely broken. Immediately a complaint was made to the police and they issued a certificate to that effect and the damage to the shop was intimated to the opposite party and a surveyor was also appointed. Thereafter on 21-5-2010, the opposite party sent a letter along with a voucher intimating that the claim was settled for Rs.13,000/-. The complainant submits that the opposite party did not estimate the actual damage and fixed the amount arbitrarily. The loss to an extent of Rs.81,295/- towards stock and the complai...

P. Madhu Babu and Others Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments De ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT568; 2012(5)ALD445

(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/Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A5/6575/2011 dt. 26.12.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, non application of mind in law besides in violation of Art.1 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A5/6575/2011 dt. 26.12.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent.) Common Order: These three writ petitions relate to appointment of Board of Trustees to Sri Polerammavari Devasthanam, Kamepalli, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District and hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 are brothers and they claim that Chaganti Rosaiah Naidu, son of Kondapa Naidu constructed the temple in 19...

G. Bhargavi, Hyderabad Vs. Secy., Home Dept., Hyderabad and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT538; 2012(5)ALD432

(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief justice) 1. This Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is filed by one     Ms. G. Bhargavi claiming to be a social worker and President of a voluntary organization - Gareeb Guide, working for promoting the human values in the society for a direction to the State of Andhra Pradesh and Director General and Inspector General of Prisons to take immediate steps and allow conjugal visits to the spouses of prisoners in jails across the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. By order dated 18.07.2012 we have dismissed the writ petition noting that reasons will be recorded later. Now, we record our reasons below. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the spouses of the prisoners who have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for longer terms at their prime age and undergoing imprisonment in the jails for various offences are deprived of opportunity of begetting children because by the time they are released from the jail the w...