Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-05-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)ALT94
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.I. INDRODUCTION1. Alienation of lands situated within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits to various Societies comprising as their members, persons, who are members of both the Houses of A.P. State Legislature, members of both the Houses of Parliament from A.P., Officers of All India Services i.e., IAS, IPS and IRS, who are the non-natives and working in the State of A.P. and those belonging to other States cadre with A.P. nativity working/worked on deputation in the State of A.P., Journalists and the High Court Judges of A.P., is the subject matter of this batch of writ petitions.2. When the State Government attempted to alienate the lands in favour of the persons belonging to the above categories, individually, the same was questioned by Dr. Rao V.B.J. Chelikani, petitioner No. 1 in WP. No. 7956 of 2008 along with two others by filing WP. No. 13730 of 2006. A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice G.S. Singhvi as he then was and one of us (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : May-12-2010
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The complaint is filed against M/s Wipro G.E. Medical Systems seeking direction for refund of Rs.37 lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum in the alternative for replacement of equipment i.e., Voluson 730 Pro and an amount of Rs.25 lakhs towards damages in addition to the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant, a doctor by profession has been running a diagnostic centre in M/s S.V. Diagnostic Center at Tirupathi. The complainant purchased Voluson 730 Pro from the opposite parties in exchange with the old equipment which was valued at Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and agreed to pay an amount of RS.11 lakhs in 60 monthly installments. Some time after the machine was installed, it posed various problems which were brought to the notice of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 by a letter dated 5.7.2005. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Apr-09-2010
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum-Nizamabad in C.D.No.114 of 2001 whereby the complainant filed F.A.No.1644 of 2006 and the opposite party no.1 filed F.A.No.608 of 2007 assailing the impugned order. F.A.No.608 of 2007 is taken as the leading case wherein the facts as represented by the parties are that on 15.9.2001 the husband of the complainant due to ill health was taken to the opposite party no.1 hospital. Even though the opposite partyno.1 treated him for three days failed to diagnose the disease he referred the patient to the opposite party no.2 hospital. The complainant admitted her husband in the opposite party no.2 hospital for treatment and she had paid Rs.35,000/- towards the expenditure for treatment of her husband. On 19.9.2001 the doctors at opposite party no.2 hospital informed the complainant that her husbands health had improved to some extent and collected an amount of Rs.10,000/- as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : May-19-2010
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.136/2005 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.538/2007 and opposite party No.3 preferred F.A.No.650/2007. 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 complainant No.1 is the daughter and complainant No.2 was the husband of late Subhadra who died on 11-6-2004 on account of negligence in treatment of opposite parties 1 and 2. The deceased Subhadra became pregnant in the month of December, 2003 and was under prenatal treatment of opposite party No.1 and taking treatment regularly as advised. During the course of the treatment, opposite party No.1 advised the deceased to undergo scanning and on undergoing the same on 30-5-2004, opposite party no.1 confirmed that she was carrying twins and informed the due date of delivery as 3-7-2004. The deceased consu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-22-2010
The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-2010
ORDER: 1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-03-2010
ORDER: The cases referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and Income Tax Tribunal Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Act, involve common question compelling disposal by a common order. All the referred cases are at the instance of the Revenue. The only question referred to this Court is; "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, poultry shed should be treated as plant, thereby allowing the assessee company in a higher rate of depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building"? Before considering rival contentions of the Junior Counsel for Revenue and the Counsel for assessees, it is appropriate to notice the background of the referred cases and ITTAs by referring to R.C.No.53 of 2001 and I.T.T.A.No.376 of 2006. In R.C.No.53 of 2001, M/s.Srinivasa Hatcheries (Private) Limited, Hyderabad, which runs a hatchery and poultry farm, buys one-day old chicks, grows them, hatches them and after incuba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-03-2010
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) 'Aabharan' is a firm. First respondent herein is its partner. The firm is in the business of selling imitation jewellery, stone ornaments, antic ornaments, fashion bangles and hair accessories. The shop is situated in rented premises bearing door No.40-1-53B owned by U.Aditya and his sister U.S.Spandana, at Benz Circle, Vijayawada. The lease was negotiated by their parents - appellants herein; in whose favour owners executed GPA. First respondent found that their shop was burgled in the intervening night of 15-16th of November, 2009. Their partner gave a report to fifth respondent. The same was registered as crime No.586 of 2009. Alleging that Station House Officer (SHO), P.S., Machavaram (fifth respondent) is not investigating, first respondent filed writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to entrust investigation to Crime Branch of Crime Investigation Department (CBCID). Learned single Judge issued mandamus as prayed. Further direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-09-2010
INTRODUCTION Hyderabad with its twin city of Secunderabad apart from being the Capital of Andhra Pradesh is also famous for its social and cultural history, pearls, pharma and software companies besides being the home of more than seven million population. It is a fast developing sprawling mega city with fast track growth initiatives and - as rumoured; a place for greedy and fortune hunters to make quick buck with speculation, political lobbying and subtle methods of cheating. The growth mine is not only gold mine for such people but a destiny for millions in search of a humble avocation to eke out decent livelihood. The city with less than a million population half a century ago is now spread over 10,000 square kilometers. In addition to irreversible environmental problems, it has also thrown up the problems of immense concern in relation to urban utilities, transport, mobility, movement and day-to-day life. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and Hyderabad Metro Development Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-12-2010
1.This application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been taken out by Sri A.Sridhar Lakshman to set aside the award dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice A.Gopala Rao, Justice T.N.C.Rangarajan, former Judges of this Court, and G.Manohar, Advocate. 2.Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to reference of the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal are:-M/s.Merbanc Financial Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") is absolute owner of 1853.80 square yards in Plot No.7, Sector 1, HUDA Techno Enclave in Sy. No.64 of Madhapur village, Sherilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. The applicant approached the company for development of the said plot into a multi-storied building complex. They entered into a development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney on 6.1.1999 (for brevity, "agreement"). Under the said agreement, the applicant was authorized to construct a multi- storied building complex on the said plot. The c...
Tag this Judgment!