Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-03-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT271
ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. The present revision is preferred by the legal heirs of landlady who were arrayed as respondents in R.A. No. 268 of 2001.2. The landlady had filed RC No. 66 of 1998 against the respondent/tenant herein for eviction on the ground that she requires the suit premises for her fourth son who is a doctor and who was arrayed as petitioner No. 6 in RC. The requirement pleaded is one for additional accommodation under Section 10(3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The landlady died pending RC and her husband and sons and daughters were brought on record as legal representatives as respondents 2 to 13 in RC. The building in which the schedule premises is situate comprises four mulgies bearing Nos. 1-8-32/61/22/1 to 4. The schedule premises in question bears municipal No. 1-8-32/61/22/2 and the monthly rent is Rs. 550/-. The respondent/tenant is carrying on business of automobile batteries and the dimens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-24-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD570; 2008(3)ALT637
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, who was vexed with needless litigation on two earlier occasions, has perforce filed this Writ Petition seeking invalidation of order dated 7-2-2008 passed by respondent No. 1 in purported exercise of his power under Rule 5(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Rules') as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 596, dated 26-5-2006. 2. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 for grant of prior clearance for obtaining licence in Form-2B for establishment and running of a Bar and Restaurant on the main road of Kazipet, Warangal District. Vide his order dated 13-9-2007 respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 1 to inspect the proposed premises for issue of prior clearance and submit a report to him. Respondent No. 1, in turn, called for a report from respondent No. 3. Accordingly, respondent No. 3, after inspection and making necessary enquiries, submitted his report dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-26-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT244
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This case unfolds the story of a victim of fraud perpetrated on him by respondent No. 4 with the active connivance of respondent No. 3 and unjust and unwarranted intervention with the arbitral award by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal headed by a responsible judicial officer. The following facts unravel this squalid affair:The petitioner is a member of respondent No. 3 Society (for short, 'the Society') with membership No. 1498 and was allotted plot bearing No. 1012 admeasuring about 1100 square yards on 04.08.1975 by the Society. The petitioner paid the entire cost of the plot in instalments and was corresponding with the Society for allotment of an alternative plot. The petitioner lives in USA. On 23.12.1992, he addressed a letter to the Society requesting it to furnish information to his GPA, Dr. Dinesh Singh (for short, 'the GPA') regarding his membership. In reply thereto, the Secretary of the Society wrote letter dated 05.01.1993, wherein he info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD787; 2008(5)ALT87; 2009LC(AP)790
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the common question viz., whether Clause 12 of Regulation 2 of 2006 and Appendix-3 to the said Regulations are applicable to the petitioners, arises for consideration. Hence, all these Writ Petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners established non-conventional power generating plants and they hold separate Agreements for Wheeling/Wheeling-cum-Power Purchase, as the case may be. Such agreements were initially entered into with the A.P. State Electricity Board (for short 'the APSEB') and with the creation of A.P. Transmission Corporation (for short 'the APTRANSCO') under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 (for short 'the 1998 Act'), which came into force with effect from 29-7-1998, these Agreements were got transferred in the name of APTRANSCO, being the successor of the APSEB. Subsequently, with the creation of four distribution companies in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT297
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 22-10-2005 passed in O.P. No. 2924 of 2003 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. A short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:Whether the court can modify the award of the arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act and allow the claim of interest which was disallowed by the arbitrator.3. The facts, which are not in dispute and relevant for disposal of the appeal, may briefly be stated as under:4. Deccan Enterprises Private Limited hereinafter called as 'Deccan' was under the management and control of O.P. Jalan. Nucon Industries Limited hereinafter called as 'Nucon' is under the management and control of R.N.Jalan.5. R.N. Jalan, father of the 1st appellant and O.P. Jalan, 1st respondent are brothers. There were several disputes among brothers before various courts including C.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-29-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT517
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. A short question that arises for consideration in all these writ appeals is whether the ancillary staff of Railway Protection Force (herein after called as 'the Force') are entitled to draw the same scales as admissible to other enrolled members of the force (combative staff).W.P. Nos. 15161/1991 and 20028/2000 were filed by the ancillary staff, and W.P. Nos. 15493/2000 and 18413/2000 were filled by the Railway Protection Force Association for issuing a Mandamus by directing the respondents to implement the pay scales as mentioned in Rule 78 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules') by declaring that the ancillary staff do come under the category of Constables, Naiks, Head Constables as per Rules 75 and 78 of the Rules and to fix the pay scales accordingly by paying arrears.2. By the impugned order dt.29-07-2002 a learned single Judge of this Court allowed W.P. Nos. 15161/1991, 15493/2000 and 20028/2000 declaring that the petitioners/ancil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-20-2008
Reported in : AIR2008AP134; 2008(2)ALD785; 2008(2)ALT474; II(2008)DMC43
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree rendered by the Family Court, Hyderabad in OP No. 43 of 1997 instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of the marriage that took place between them on 15-11-1989. This tragic case unfolds the grave impact, an otherwise innocuous piece of information not being put forth at the very beginning, will have, upon the conjugal life of two highly qualified individuals.2. The respondent-husband who hails from Hyderabad City has pursued his career in a performing art - a dance form of India. His mastery over this Fine art has taken him to shores as far as New York City where he settled down in 1981 and eventually became a citizen of the United States of America. Upon an informal introduction by a common friend, they came in close contact with each other facilitating exchange of views and then agreed to get united in wedlock. By then both the parties are beyo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-22-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT87
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, and its Branch Office at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, are the appellants. They are defendants in O.S. No. 134 of 1983 filed by State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Director of Fisheries, Hyderabad. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,8007- being insurance amount under Marine Hull policy for mechanized fishing boat - 'Sorrah 30'. The suit was decreed with costs on 17-10-1989 directing the appellants (hereafter, defendants) to pay insurance amount claimed with interest at 8% per annum.2. The case of plaintiff is as follows. Director of Fisheries allotted 'Sorrah 30', fishing boat, to third defendant on hire purchase basis. The hirer was required to pay hire purchase instalment amount as well as insurance for the boat on behalf of Director. Insurance policy expired on 1-1-1975. Third defendant took fresh insurance on 6-9-1975 near Pudimadaka in Visakhapatnam District. Third defendant gave telegram to Assistant Direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Oct-27-2008
D. Appa Rao, President: This is a case of medical negligence 1. The case of the complainants in brief is that, complainant No. 1 is the father, complainant No. 2 is the mother and complainant No. 3 is the wife of late Azeezur Rahman who was working as a software engineer in M/s. Infotech Enterprises Ltd., Hyderabad on a salary of Rs. 2,35,045 per annum. While so, on 17.10.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. while going to his office on a bike he fell down and sustained simple fracture with displacement in radius of the left forearm, and was treated as out-patient at NIMS, Hyderabad. The doctors at NIMS advised surgery. Since he had a medi-claim policy, and was under the impression that the treatment in private corporate hospitals would be good, he got admitted in opposite party No. 1 hospital. On 18.1.2003 opposite party No. 2 Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon examined the deceased advised him to undergo the operation. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 performed open reduction and internal fixation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-22-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD422; 2008(3)ALT774; (2009)ILLJ439AP
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The Management of A.P.S.R.T.C has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 19 of 1997 dated 06.02.1998, wherein it was held that employees of the A.P.S.R.T.C. were entitled to be paid the difference between the ex-gratia payable to them in accordance with the amended Payment of Bonus Act and the actual ex-gratia paid to them under the pre-amended Payment of Bonus Act. On a dispute being raised by the 1st respondent - union, the Government of A.P, vide G.O.Rt. No. 662 dated 17.4.1997, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:Whether the APSRTC Employees Union is justified in demanding the Managing of APSRTC for payment of Ex-gratia for the year 1993-94 and to formulate exempted employees pension scheme? If so to what relief the workman are entitled to?2. The petitioner-corporation started paying ex-gratia t...
Tag this Judgment!