1
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-20-2012
Reported in : 2012(5)ALT499
(Petition under Section 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100(1)(d) and 101 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made there under Read With Rules to Regulate the Trial of Election Petitions under the Representation issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to – a) Declare the Election of respondent No.1 to the Legislative Council 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency, Nizamabad held on 30-03-2009 as illegal and void; b) Direct Recounting and scrutiny of the ballot papers and validate three votes cast in favour of the petitioner; c) Declare one vote caste in favour of the respondent No.1 as invalid; d) To set aside the Election of the 1st respondent as the member of the Legislative Council from 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency; e) To declare the petitioner as elected to the Legislative Council of the State of A.P., from 18 Nizamabad Local Authority Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-06-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.21217 of 2012 and Batch 06.11.2012 Landmark Developers & others Govt. of A.P. & others Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, Senior Advocate : : Cases referred:1. 1996 (1) ALT 10.(D.B.) 2) (2002) 1 Supreme Court Case3. AIR 198.SC 71.4) (2002) 1 Supreme Court Case5. (1998) 3 Supreme Court Case6. AIR 197.Supreme Cour7. AIR 200.Supreme Cour8. AIR 199.Supreme Court 1398 (1) 9) (1990) 1 Supreme Court Case10. 1994 (42) BLJR 52 WRIT PETITION NOs.21217 of 2012, 34216 of 2011, 34372 of 2011 and 26910 of 2012 COMMON ORDER:1. Since the subject matter of all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. WRIT PETITION No. 21217 of 2012:2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 07.05.2010 in Proceedings No.1343/R6-1/2010 passed by the second respondent-Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad on the basis of the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-26-2012
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT APPEAL (SR) No.941 o26. 9.2012 N. Veeraju. M.V.Reddy, Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Hyderabad and three others. Counsel for petitioner: MR. T. RAMAKRISHNA RAO Counsel for Respondents: ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1) (2006) 5 SCC 39.2) (2009) 8 SCC 43.JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This contempt appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.12.2011 in C.C.No.519 of 2008 under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal and Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 36 of the Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. On 14.02.2012, when this appeal was preferred, the Registry raised certain objections, which were complied with and the counsel re-presented the appeal on 09.04.2012. Thereafter, the Registry has raised question of maintainability of the appeal as we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-21-2012
Oral Order: (Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of `14,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses along with compensation of `50 lakh and costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that on 6.8.2008 the complainant during her period of pregnancy, approached the opposite party no.1 for regular check-up and he suggested LSCS to the complainant and advised her to be admitted in opposite party no.3 hospital. On 7.8.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. she was admitted in opposite party no.3 hospital and cesarean operation was done on the complainant on 8.8.2008. The complainant gave birth to a male child. The opposite party no.2 after conducting investigation on 9.8.2008 issued report showing no complications. On 9.8.2008 at about 4.45 p.m. the complainant was administered blood transfusion as per the instructions of the opposite party no.1. The complainant developed complications during blood transfusion and it w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-31-2012
Oral Order: (Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking compensation against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 a sum of `50,00,000/- with interest @24% p.a. and costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant, a government school teacher was proceeding as pillion rider on a Motor Cycle on 21.07.2006 which met with an accident resulting in injury and swelling to the complainants left knee for treatment of which he consulted a local doctor who treated him for two days and thereafter the complainant attended to his duties. In the month of August,2006 the complainant consulted twice Dr.Kauliah and once Dr.Hari Prasad and he was relieved of the pain. On 31.12.2006 the complainant had been to Shirdi and on 4.01.2007 he experienced pain in his left knee and when he consulted Dr.Hari Prasad at Nizamabad he advised the complainant to do some physiotherapy exercise and consult a knee specialist. The complainant had done the physiotherapy exercise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Jun-06-2012
Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.33/2007 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, opposite party preferred appeal, F.A.No.1384/2010 and the complainant preferred appeal F.A.No.501/2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants wife approached the opposite party on 11-4-2006 for her gynaec problem and opposite party after check up suggested that the patient should undergo operation. The complainant submitted that he asked the opposite party first to conduct Biopsy but the opposite party conducted operation on the wife of the complainant on 25-4-2006. The complainant submitted that his wifes position turned more worse and she suffered from Giddiness and waist pain etc., soon after the operation but the opposite party was on camp and the nurses attended on the patient and discharged on 30-4-2006. The complainant submitted that on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-2012
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the proceedings in crime no.336 of 2009 of C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad. 2. Basing on the report lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant against the petitioners, who are A.1 to A.5, and against A.6, police registered the aforesaid crime for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The allegations in the report, in brief, may be stated as follows: A.2 is the Managing Director, A.3 to A.5 are Directors, and A.6 is the authorized dealer, of A.1 company. On 25.09.2009, he purchased a BMW 7 series car bearing engine No.2007095 and Chassis No.WBAKM42010C232054 from A.6. On 29.09.2009, when he was driving the car on his way from Khammam, suddenly, wheels of the car turned at an angle and the steering wheel instead of being level, turned to another angle and a loud noise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11025 OF 200.22-03-2012 BMW India Private Limited (A1), Building No.8, Tower B, 7th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase 2, Gurgaon - 122001 (Haryana) and four others The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor and another Counsel for Petitioner: Sri B. Mayur Reddy Counsel for Respondent1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent 2: Sri A. Ramesh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C. Raghu HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1) (1972) 3 SCC 66.2) 1982 Crl.L.J.2266 3) AIR 195.SC 72.4) 1999 Crl.L.J 390.5) (2006) 6 SCC 73.6) (2008) 11 SCC 67.7) 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 33.8) AIR 199.SC 121.9) JT 200.(3) SC 8.10) AIR 199.SC 137.11) (2009) 11 SCC 52.12) AIR 200.SC 301.13) (2007) 12 SCC 9.14) AIR (32) 1945 Privy Counci15. (2003) 2 SCC 64.16) (2005) 4 SCC 30.17) (2007) 3 SCC 69.18) (2008) 5 SCC 66.19) (2011) 1 SCC 7.THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11025 OF 200.ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Jul-18-2012
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-05-2012
COMMON ORDER: C.P. No.67 of 2006 is filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta Dochania, and C.P. No.104 of 2006 is filed by Amarnath Gupta Dochania and 6 others, seeking winding up of the respondent company under Section 433(f) read with Section 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act” for short). As the respondent company is common in both these company petitions, it would suffice if the pleadings in C.P. No.67 of 2006 are noted. Though several contentions are raised in the company petition, filed for winding up of the respondent company, Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would restrict his submissions only to Section 433(c), and submit that it would suffice if this Court were to note the pleadings in support thereof. Both the petitioners herein are shareholders of the respondent company. While the petitioners claim that they, along with their family members, held 1/3rd of the share capital of the respondent-company, it is the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!