Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)ALT753
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed-by the defendants, aggrieved against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, in A.S.No. 1567 of 1985 dated 14-8-1995, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-12-1984 in O.S. No. 67 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Judge at Tanuku and decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein - Plaintiff.2. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1-5-1974 (Ex.A-1). The said agreement (Ex. A-l) is executed by defendant No. 1 who is the kartha of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons - defendants 2 to 8; Defendant No. 2 was the only major son and has executed Ex.A-1 along with his father. The property to be conveyed by the said agreement is an agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 2.27 cts (9156 Sq. metres) situated in Khandavali village, Tanuku Taluk, West Godavari District. The total sale consideration stipulated und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT120; 1996(1)ARBLR681(AP)
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment in W.P. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990 by a learned Single Judge of this court. Facts leading to the petitioner-respondent invoking this court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in nutshell as follows : A dispute arose between the petitioner-respondent and the appellant herein in course of the execution of a contract for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. In accordance with the arbitration Clause 12(2) of the agreement the parties, nominated their respective arbitrators and the arbitrators appointed the umpire. The arbitrators, however, gave an award on 2.2.1987 granting to the petitioner-respondent Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,000/-. They, however, gave no reasons to support their award. The petitioner-respondent 17filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987 in the court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP162
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench relates to the maintainability of an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order of a single Judge of this Court refusing to review an order passed by him earlier dismissing the petition for leave to prefer an appeal in forma pauperis.2. This reference has been necessitated by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Chinnadorai v. Doraisundaram : AIR1954Mad642 which, in its turn, followed the principle enunciated by Muttuswami Ayyar and Parker JJ. in Achaya v. Ratnavel, 1LR 9 Mad 253.3. The point to be considered by us is whether the rule stated in : AIR1954Mad642 represents the correct law. The principle enunciated in that ruling is that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge dismissing a petition for review having regard to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. and that this provision of law prevails over Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Undeniably, Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT729
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on Office note as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal sought to be filed by the appellants.2. The relevant facts are as follows: Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16523 of 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the settlement arrived at dated 26-10-1991 entered into by the respondents with the Union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Officer - cum - Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-4-1992 in the following terms:'In view of the above, there will be a direction that the respondents,shall consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Helpers in terms of the Settlement dated 26-10-1991 which the respondents had entered into with the Trade Union representing the petitioners. I make it absolutely clear that I am not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP342
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the judgement of Punnayya, J. in AAO, Nos. 76 and 77 of 1975.2. The respondent filed the suit O. S. No.93/1957 for the partition of the plaint A Schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share for her, after setting aside the alienations made by her son, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 2 to 5. The suit was decreed on 29-7-1958 and the alienations were set aside. The 2nd defendant, an alienee, preferred the appeal A. S. No. 506/1969 in the High Court, but it was dismissed on 26-9-1963. Then he filed L.P.A. No. 104/1964. It was also dismissed on 30-10-1969 with some directions. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 39/1973 on 23-4-1973 against the 2nd defendant for recovery of costs. She also filed E.P. No. 151/1973 for recovery of mesne profits.3. In E. P. No. 39/1973 the 2nd defendant has raised an objection that it was barred by limitation under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD481; 2002(6)ALT429
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Plaintiffs in OS No. 29 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, preferred AS No. 1204 of 1994 to this Court against the decree of dismissal and filed CMP No. 14374 of 1994 seeking an injunction restraining the respondents in the appeal from alienating the properties covered by the suit during the pendency of the appeal. A learned single Judge of this Court granted an ex parte order of injunction on 28-10-1994. Subsequently respondents in the appeal filed CMP No. 18845 of 1994 to vacate the ex parte order of injunction dated 28-10-1995. By an order dated 2-12-1994, a learned single Judge of this Court, taking into consideration the averment in para 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the appeal that they are not trying to alienate any properties in question, feeling that there is no need to continue the interim injunction granted on 28-10-1994, in view of the statement, vacated the ex parte injunction, by ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(3)ALT100
B.K. Somasekhara, J. 1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of first respondent depended upon in O.S.No. 85 of 1982 which was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge, Khammam on 25-4-1987 which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Khammam in A.S.No. 24 of 1987 dated 30-12-1988 has resulted in this second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law.2. Non-compliance of mandatory requirement in a suit for specific performance; to plead readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract by the plaintiff is fatal to the suit and in this case when that was not done in addition to want of proof, the learned Judges of the Courts below were totally beyond the legal fore to spell their findings and the decisions.3. When the claim petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. in regard to the property covered by the agreement which was under attachment in the Execution proceedings filed by defendant No. 2 came to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP371; 1996(1)ALT600
ORDER1. There is conflict of perception of a problem, the problem of dealing with stray dogs in the twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and remedial measures to be adopted to solve that problem, between an individual and a public authority and this conflict is carried to this Court for consideration and resolution by way of this writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is one J. Gopalan. He claims to be an Engineer by profession and he is a permanent resident of Hyderabad for the past 30 years. The petitioner has stated that he has filed this PIL to espouse the cause of the residents of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.2. The Respondent No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, for short 'the Corporation'; the second respondent is Smt. Rachel Chatterjee who was the Commissioner of the Corporation at the relevant time and the third respondent is Blue Cross represented by its Chair-Person Smt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALT112; 2006(2)ARBLR343(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the order and decree, dated 15-7-2004, in Arbitration O.P. No. 1064 of 2003, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.3. The appellant is the Railways, the respondent No. 1 is the claimant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Arbitrators.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will be referred to as 'the Railways', 'the claimant', and 'the Arbitrators', respectively.5. The facts that led to filing of the appeal are as under:The claimant was awarded with Turn key Contract for execution of certain works for a total value of Rs. 2.66 Crores stipulating the specific date of completion as 26-8-1994. The said period was extended up to 30-6-1997 from time to time at the request of the claimant. The works were completed, however, a few ancillary works and supplies remained incomplete. Hence, time was again extended till 30-6-1998 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Incharge, President: 1. Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 82/2001 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, opposite party No. 1 preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants daughter, Ms. Kavita, consulted Dr. Sudheer Goje of Bodhan on 7.4.2000 with a complaint of chest pain. After examining the patient, he gave some medicines and advised to undergo some tests but as the patient did not respond to the treatment and on his advice approached Dr. Shyam Sunder of Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad i.e. opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 treated her as out-patient on 17.4.2000 and as initial diagnosis observed that there are no cervical glands and lungs were normal and advised to use medicines for one week as per O.P. card and come for review after four days without prescribing air-bronchogramme. Blood examination was done on 17.4. 2000 at opposite party No. 3 diagnostic centre revealed that ESR level was on hi...
Tag this Judgment!