Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD496; 2007(3)ALT40
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. As these two appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 409 of 1988, dated 9-9-1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, we consider it expedient to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common judgment.2. A.S. No. 2860 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the refusal to grant decree for specific performance and A.S. No. 672 of 1997 is filed by the defendants aggrieved by a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards development charges with interest thereon at 18% per annum.3. The parties to these two appeals will hereinafter be referred in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendants, for the purpose of convenience.4. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals in brief, are as follows:The defendants 1 to 5 are brothers and they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 2-10-1987 with the plaintiffs who are relatives and friends...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-15-2006
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD460; 2006(6)ALT714; [2007]73SCL112(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Intrvduction:M/s. Annapurna Rail S&T; Construction Limited is a company registered on 11.6.1998 under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated with the main object of carrying on business of undertaking contract works especially Signalling and Telecommunications (S&T;) works with Indian Railways. On 10.2.2004, the name of the said company was changed as M/s. Yella Construction Limited (the petitioner herein). As per the Memorandum and Articles of Association, there are six shareholders including M/s. Y. Raghavaiah and Y. Venkata Lakshmi. There are four Directors in the Board of Directors of the company including Y. Raghavaiah. The company filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order/letter, dated 21.7.2005 issued by the Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Projects), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar - the third respondent herein. By the said letter, M/s. Annapurna Rail S&T; Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam (as the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-23-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD254; 2007(2)ALT212; [2007(112)FLR1155]
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered Notice before admission returnabfe in six weeks on 28-4-2006 and the learned Counsel for petitioners was permitted to take out personal notice to the 1sl respondent and to file proof of service and interim stay was granted for a period of eight weeks.2. Sri Section Chalapathi Rao, the learned Counsel entered appearance.3. Sri P. Hari Prasad, the learned Counsel representing Sri Pamulaparthy Sadasiva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had erred in ordering attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code') relating to the Provident Fund and L.I.C. policy amounts. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 60 of the Code and Section 10 of the Employees Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952, (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD407
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 23.10.2006. The matter is coming up under the caption of interlocutory.2. It is stated that counter affidavit was already filed. Learned Counsel on record made a request to dispose of the writ petition finally.3. The writ petition is filed with a prayer as follows:.to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to acquire the land to an extent of 1210 Sq. yards (25 cents) situated in Sy. No. 108(p) and 109(p) of Nagarajupalli (V) by demolishing the compound wall and a part of the building existing therein without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the said land and not to demolish the compound wall and a part of the existing building of the petitioner till the 2nd respondent allots suitable land to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-02-2006
Reported in : 2008(1)SLJ526(NULL)
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This Petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.C. No. 57 of 2003 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Employees State Insurance Act and Chairman, Industrial Disputes-I, at Hyderabad initiated for the offence under Section 85(a) r/w (i)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act').2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on 28.7.2006 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for second respondent. Since none represented the first respondent-complainant, the matter is posted to today for orders. Even today, none represented the first respondent-complainant.3. The first accused is M/s. Sarvaraya Textiles Limited Company and the petitioners herein arc the A-2 and A-3 and they are the Managing Directors of A-1-Company. The allegations of the prosecution is that A-2 and A-3 are the principal employers in respect of A-1 -Company within the meaning of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-05-2006
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC592; 2007ACJ2038; 2006(5)ALD614; 2006(5)ALT789
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident and the appellant - State of A.P. is common in both the appeals and also the issued raised is common, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. CMA No. 3171/199 is filed by the State aggrieved by the order dated 5-7-1999 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P. No. 423/1995. CMA No. 68/2000 is filed against the order dated 5-7-1999 passed by the same Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 424/1995.4. The facts with regard to deceased in both the claim petitions dying in the accident on 29-9-1993 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP.M. 2087 and the quantum of compensation granted in both the O.Ps. by the Tribunal, is not under dispute. The two fold contention of the Counsel for the appellant - State is that as the widow of the deceased in M.V.O.P. No. 423/1995 and the son of the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-29-2006
Reported in : II(2007)ACC295; 2007ACJ830; 2006(5)ALD598; 2006(5)ALT339
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. Since the parties and the impugned judgment in both the appeals are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool by the order and decree dated 26-10-1998 in M.V.O.P. No. 713/1996, the claimants filed C.M.A. No. 1144/1999. On the other hand, aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the above said M.V.O.P., the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 451/2005.4. The case of the claimants in brief is that on 8-8-1996 at about 6.30 p.m. P. David, who is the deceased, working in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, F.R.L. Sub-Division, Kallur, engaged the Allwyn Nissan Mini Lorry bearing No. A.P.21 -T-2297 belonging to the 1st respondent on hire for one day for transportation of his household articles from Kurnool to Gadivemula and again from Gadivemula to Kurnool. On 8-8-1996 in the evening the deceased left from Ku...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-29-2006
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: 1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that late Smt. R. Lakshmi is the mother of first and second complainants and wife of third complainant. The complainants submit that they are consumers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having domestic gas connection bearing No. V. 22959 and the gas cylinders were regularly supplied to the complainants house by their agent i.e. opposite party No. 3 who was under the control and supervision of opposite parties 1 and 2. On 8.2.2002 late Smt. R. Lakshmi was cooking food for her family and found the existing cylinder empty and at around 11.00 a.m. she changed it with a new sealed cylinder which was supplied by opposite party No. 3 on 3.1.2002. After installing the new cylinder supplied by the agent, she started cooking around 11.45 a.m. and after some time due to failure of the washer i.e. O ring in the cylinder neck, slowly gas leaked out and accumulated under the platform of the gas stove and around 12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-07-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD704; 2006(5)ALT408
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20.01.1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service, as confirmed in proceedings dated 16.04.1996 of the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revisional order dated 5/6-01.1999 of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Railway Protection Force (for short 'R.P.F') Constable on 26.08.1985. According to the petitioner, after completion of duty on 30.09.1994, and on coming to know that his wife was behaving abnormally, he went to his native place. Petitioner contends that he gave a 'Security Control Message' on 02.10.1994 at about 5.30 A.M. seeking ten days leave, since his wife had expired. Petitioner submits that his father-in-law gave a false complaint against him and his parents in C.K. Dinne police station and that he was arrested on 02.10.1994 itself.3. The 1st respondent is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-12-2006
Reported in : I(2007)ACC349; 2007(1)ALD333; 2007(1)ALT59
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11-2-2000 in O.P. No. 627 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Vizianagaram, wherein the claim of the first respondent herein was allowed awarding Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum and costs.2. The first respondent herein filed the claim application OP No. 627 of 1997 before the Tribunal against the appellants and the second respondent - driver, for a total compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. According to the first respondent, on 5-8-1996 at about 9.30 a.m., while she was boarding the APS RTC Bus bearing No. AP-9/Z-2551 at Denkada bus stop, along with other passengers including her father and brother, the driver of the bus, in a rash and negligent manner, started the bus even before the claimant and others could get in and in the process, the claimant fell down from footboard and the rear wheel of the bus ran over two legs of the claimant, resulting in multiple fractur...
Tag this Judgment!