Court : Andhra Pradesh
common order: it is apropos to begin this judgment by noting mr. henry viscards jr., american activist who fought for the rights of disabled formula propounded for belief for the disabled: ''i seek opportunity, not security. i will not trade my dignity for a handout. it is my heritage to think and act for myself.'' 1. it is apposite to note the observations of honble justice s.b. sinha in justice j.k. mathur memorial lecturer (published in (2005 ) 3 scc j-1): the mindset of people towards pwds which needs to be changed . in the words of henry viscards jr.,. there are no disabled people. there is nothing which can substitute for human rights, no honours, no fame, no pension, no subsidy, can replace a wish to work with dignity in free and open competition with all. (emphasis supplied). 2. in his conclusive remarks, justice sinha observed, legal predications, judicial pronouncements and constitutional preferences only elucidate the imperative, for laws alone cannot guarantee integration. there are no firm policy decisions nor is there any action plan as to how and in what manner the provisions of the enactments would be implemented. significantly, there has also been no financial impact assessment conducted to anticipate the cost of policies. besides, there is also a need to recognize that problems do not reside in a person with a disability, but are a result of structural practices and attitudes that prevent an individual from exercising his or her capabilities. the time is now .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
common judgment: c.c.c.a.no.62 of 2013: 1. the appeal is maintained by the then a.p.state civil supplies corporation(for short, corporation') represented by its vice chairman and managing director, hyderabad, the 1st defendant, among three defendants including the state of a.p. represented by the chief secretary, government of a.p. and state bank of hyderabad, kurnool branch represented by its manager, impugning the decree and judgment of the trial court dated dt.14.09.2009 in o.s.no.2172 of 2006 filed by m/s maruthi road lines rep. by its proprietor y.venkateshwarlu, for recovery of rs.5,40,000/- with future interest and costs, for decreeing by the trial court the suit against three defendants {(the civil supplies corporation(the appellant herein) and the state government( the then a.p.) and against the 3rd defendant (state bank of hyderabad also)} for rs.3,65,715/-( which includes of rs.1,30,000/- the claim of the plaintiff on bills, increase of 30% transport rate from 15.10.1990 to the end of december, 1990 of rs.35,715/-, forfeited security deposit of rs.50,000/- and forfeited bank guarantee from 3rd defendant bank of rs.1,50,000/-) with future interest at 6%p.a. from the date of suit (dt.22.07.1991) till realization with proportionate costs of rs.19,878/-. c.c.c.a.no.63 of 2013: 2. the appeal is maintained by the then a.p.state civil supplies corporation represented by its vice chairman and managing director, hyderabad, the 1st defendant, among three defendants .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. this petition is filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, the crpc') by the petitioner/accused to quash the order passed in crl.m.p.no.236 of 2015 in cr.no.154 of 2011 on the file of the x additional chief metropolitan magistrate, secunderabad, who took cognizance of protest petition filed by the defacto-complainant for the offences u/sec.3(1)(x) of scs/sts(poa) act, 1989. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned public prosecutor representing state-1st respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-defacto-complainant and perused the material on record. 3. the factual matrix is that the 2nd respondent by name v.jai prakash is member of the 8th ward of cantonment area. the petitioner/accused is present defence estates officer, kolkota circle, kolkota, west bengal and earlier worked as chief executive officer of the secunderabad cantonment member. the 2nd respondent presented a police report dated 25.08.2011, to the station house officer, maredpally police station, against the petitioner herein with the averments that he belongs to arrava mala of s.c. community and elected ward member from ward no.8 of secunderabad cantonment from the reserved constituency, in the elections of may, 2008, that it is the practice in the cantonment board that whenever board meeting is held, the proceedings have to be recorded in the minutes book and got thereof to be circulated and in the board meeting held on 20.07.2011, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
the petitioner is sole accused of crime no.210 of 2012 of kharkana police station, secunderabad registered for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 of ipc on the report of the first respondent defacto complainant. he sought for quashing of proceedings of the said crime pending. the averments of the report of the defacto complainant dated 14.12.2012 in nutshell are that the accused is no other than the brother of d e f a c t o complainant-mrs.lavanya lewis represented by gpa holder pretham powaku of secunderabad. that she is working in a multinational company in texas and in order to support her brother and from his interest to establish a company without any financial investment, she helped him by investing the entire amount which she was remitting to bank accounts from her account and company account of mfk llc, chase bank, account no.00000746517416 from usa, but, however he has been mentally harassing her for money and threatening to stop the process of us work and also harassing the ex-employees to extract money. that in february, 2011, she visited india and set up a pilot programme of operational activities of the business with a clear intention to support her brother and mother and entire amount remitted to their bank accounts sbh a/c.no.52001012362 and ing vysya bank from usa and not a single penny invested by them. moreover, even operational expenditure was sent by her and has been spent by them and all the work and other assignments, she had diverted to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
common order: the petitioner-smt.j.sesha ratna kumari in crl.p.no.2715 of 2013 is the sole accused in c.c.no.307 of 2012 on the file of the additional judicial first class magistrate, sangareddy, where the learned magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 418, 420 and 406 ipc, which is an out come of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-p.venkatesham dated 23.06.2011. the said private complaint was referred to ramachandrapuram police station under section 156(3) cr.p.c. by the learned magistrate for investigation, from which crime no.206 of 2011 was registered and after investigation police filed the final report. after taking cognizance for the offences supra, the learned magistrate issued summons and impugning the same, crl.p.no.2715 of 2013 is filed. 1(a). the petitioner-smt.a.suchitra in crl.p.no.2716 of 2013 is the sole accused in c.c.no.308 of 2012 on the file of the additional judicial first class magistrate, sangareddy, where the learned magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 418, 420 and 406 ipc, which is an out come of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-p.venkatesham dated 23.06.2011. the said private complaint was referred to ramachandrapuram police station under section 156(3) cr.p.c. by the learned magistrate for investigation, from which crime no.207 of 2011 was registered and after investigation police filed the final report. after taking .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
this writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, challenges the award dated 30-08-2001 passed by the labour court-cum-industrial tribunal, ananthapur in i.d.no.161 of 1998 to the extent the same went against the petitioner. briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the respondent road transport corporation in the year 1989 and he was terminated from service on 06-03-1997 followed by a departmental enquiry on the charge of un-authorized absence for the period from 24-03-1996 to 01-04-1996. after un-successfully availing the appellate and review remedies, the petitioner raised industrial dispute no.161 of 1998 under section 2 (a) 2 of industrial disputes act, 1947. the labour court, by way of an award, dated 30-08-2001, while setting aside the order of termination, directed re-instatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages and also directed deferment of four annual increments with cumulative effect. in the above background, the present writ petition came to instituted. this court ordered rule nisi on 16-03-2011. heard sri g. ravi mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri a. rama rao, learned standing counsel for the road transport corporation, apart from perusing the material available before this court. learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the writ affidavit, made the following .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
this writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare endorsement bearing roc no.2664/2012-g1, dated 10.01.2014, of respondent no.4, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners filed for regularization of their plot admeasuring 456 sq.yards in rs.no.201/3 of tadepalligudem municipality as illegal. i have heard sri n.vijay, learned counsel for the petitioners, and sri venkateswarlu nimmagadda, learned standing counsel for municipalities (ap) representing respondent nos.3 and 4. the petitioners pleaded that their paternal grandfather, by name, jutta gangaraju, purchased an extent of acs.1.80 cents in b.s.nos.129/2 and 129/3 of kadkatla village, tadepalligudem municipality in the year 1945, that the said numbers were later renumbered as r.s.nos.201/2, 201/3 and 201/4, that jutta gangaraju constructed a house over the said land and that he expired in 1951. that subsequently his sons i.e., jutta subba rao and jutta somaraju, remained joint and constructed a building with rcc roof on the existing foundations pursuant to the building permission granted by respondent no.4 vide proceedings in roc.b.a.no.62/74, dated 15.06.1974. the petitioners further averred that jutta subba rao expired in the year 1985 and jutta somaraju expired in the year 1987, that subsequently their children have partitioned the joint family properties including the extent of ac.1.85 cents along with other properties and that under the partition deed, the plot on which the petitioners intend to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. this appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.06.2004 passed by learned v senior civil judge, city civil court, hyderabad dismissing their suito.s.no.345 of 1995 for partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allotment of one such shares to them. 2. factual matrix of the case is thus: a) the plaintiffs case is that khande rao bodhanker (for short khande rao) and anandi bai (for short anandi bai) are couple. khande rao died intestate on 02.12.1976 and anandi bai also died intestate on 16.02.1995. they have two sons of whom the d1-govind rao bodhanker (for short govind rao) is the elder son and one vasudev rao bodhanker (for short vasudev rao) is the younger son. d15 is the son and d14 is the daughter-in-law of d1. d16 to d19 are sons of d14 and d15. whereas the second sonvasudev rao is concerned, he died intestate on 01.08.1977. his first wifeambu bai died intestate on 06.06.1972. their marriage was held in the year 1945 and they begot a sondhananjay bodhanker (for short dhananjay) who is the second plaintiff. first plaintiff sushila bai bodhanker (for short sushila bai) is the younger sister of ambu bai and she is the second wife of vasudev rao. ambu bai had a paralytic stroke and completely disabled and therefore, vasudev rao married the first plaintiff as his second wife on 09.03.1953 and through her begot the children who are plaintiffs 3 to 6. b) the further case of the plaintiffs is that plainta schedule property .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. this writ petition is filed praying to grant direction to defer holding of disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. 2. facts relevant for consideration of this case are as under. petitioner is presently holding middle management grade scale-iii cadre post. petitioner worked as branch manager of kankal branch from 29.06.2009 to 22.05.2012 and branch manager, rangampet branch from 12.06.2012 to 02.02.2014. 3. alleging that grave illegalities were committed while functioning as branch manager in the above two branches, petitioner was served with two separate charge memos dated 20.01.2015 and 23.02.2015. alleging that grave financial irregularities committed by the petitioner a s assistant general manager, respondent bank lodged complaint dated 03.02.2014 with the station house officer, kulcharam police station, medak district. crime no.07 of 2014 was registered under sections 409, 420, 464, 465, 467, 471 read with 34 of indian penal code and police have taken up investigation. petitioner contends that the case is now entrusted to the central bureau of investigation (cbi) and cbi is investigating into the allegations leveled against the petitioner and other co-employees. 4. the substance of the allegations in the charge memo dated 20.01.2015 is disbursement of 246 fictitious agricultural term loans during the period of his tenure in rangampet branch violating the laid down extant guidelines regarding sanction, release and conduct of agricultural .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
u. durga prasad rao, j. 1. this criminal appeal is preferred by the state against the judgment dt:10.01.2007 in s.c.no.122 of 2006 passed by the principal sessions judge, west godavari, eluru, whereby and whereunder the learned judge acquitted the accused for the charge levelled against him under section 302 of indian penal code (for short i.p.c ?). 2. the case of prosecution briefly is thus: a) on 15.08.2005, the deceased roshan baig and his friends demanded the accused for money to consume liquor at gun bazar center, eluru, as they came to know that accused disposed off his cell phone for rs.1500/- and when accused refused to pay amount to them, they manhandled the accused on that night. on 19.08.2005, a wordy duel had taken place between the accused and deceased at the house of deceased i.e, at pension mahal, eluru and though the parents of the deceased pacified the matter but the accused had not satisfied with the settlement and bore grudge against the deceased. b) the further case of the prosecution is that on the night of 21.08.2005, at about 11:00pm, when the deceased and shaik sikindhar (pw.2) were sleeping on the pial of the house of abdul khurdhush at pension mahal, eluru, the accused who predetermined to kill the deceased in view of their disputes, went there, woke up the deceased by proclaiming that he was searching for the deceased since last 2 days and if he kills him, who would rescue him and poured petrol on the deceased and set him ablaze. the deceased .....
Tag this Judgment!