|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Suggula Venkata Subrahmanyam and others vs Desu Venkata Rama Rao and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 20 Aug 2010]
Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ss. 47 and 115 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, s. 28 - Execution of decree - First respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the petitioners - Said suit was decreed and first respondent was directed to obtain the execution of the sale deed 'within three months' from the date of the decree - First respondent filed execution petition seeking execution of the decree - Petitioners filed application u/s. 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking rescission of the agreement of sale on the ground that the decree holder had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration and obtain execution of the sale deed within the three month period stipulated in the decree - Application was dismissed - Executing Court allowed the execution petition and it was held that the first respondent (decree holders) were entitled to get the regular sale deed executed after depositing the balance sale consideration along with interest and on such deposit, if the petitioners failed to execute the sale deed the decree holders were given the liberty to obtain the sale deed as per law - Hence, present civil revision petition u/s. 115 of CPC - Held, when the decree specifically stipulated a three month time period and there was no petition seeking enlargement of that time it was perverse on the part of the Executing Court to order the execution petition without considering whether it was filed within 'reasonable time' - Construction placed by the Executing Court upon the decree that the decree holder could not obtain execution of the decree till expiry of three months from the date of the decree was opposed to the language of the decree itself - Approach of Executing Court in holding that the execution petition should be ordered automatically as it was filed within time, i.e. within 12 years from the date of the decree was incorrect - Order passed by Executing Court set aside - Civil revision petition allowed.
|
R. Kondaiah S/o Kumara Swamy vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2010]
|
Union of India vs V. Santhabai and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2010]
|
P. Ravi Prasad Goud vs P. Krishna and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 10 Aug 2010]
|
K. Durga Prasad vs Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, represented by its Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer, Ananthapur and another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 10 Aug 2010]
|
Uppala Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 09 Aug 2010]
|
P. Rajagopal Reddy vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 06 Aug 2010]
|
Executive Officer, Group Temples, Srikakulam vs Sri Sakhiya Matt, Rep. by Byragi Tulasabai and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 06 Aug 2010]
|
Janagama Shankaraiah vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 04 Aug 2010]
Municipalities & Local Governments - A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, ss. 249(1) & (6) - Suspension - Petitioner elected as Sarpanch of a Grampanchayat on 29.07.2006 - Complaints against Petitioner alleging misuse of his powers and misappropriation of grampanchayat funds - Show cause notice was issued to Petitioner - Explanation was filed by the petitioner - It was concluded that petitioner misappropriated funds and issued permits contrary to the Rules and petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch for a period of three months pending investigation into the allegations made against him - Present writ petition - Whether impugned order liable to be set aside as the District Collector, the respondent no.2 had no authority for passing the said order u/s. 249(6) of the Act as much as no proceedings are initiated u/s. 249(1) of the Act and as there was non-consideration of the explanation submitted by petitioner? - Held, the power u/s. 249(6) cannot be construed only as an action for suspension pending inquiry into the charges u/s. 249(6) of the Act and u/s. 249(6), in view of the prima facie conclusions arrived at, the authority is empowered to pass an order of suspension for a period of 3 months, and that too, by giving proper opportunity as contemplated under proviso to s. 249(6) which clearly clarifies that the power of suspension can be resorted to in the situations, which warrant u/s. 249(6), for passing an order of suspension for a period of 3 months only - Language used 'pending investigation into the said charges' in s. 249(6) is in generic sense and to be construed as collecting the further facts and evidence on the allegations made against the Sarpanch and it need not necessarily be construed as an action only pending inquiry into the charges by framing charges u/s. 249(1), when the District Collector comes to the conclusion that the Sarpanch is abusing the powers vested on him and continuance of such person is detrimental to the interest of the local body, as an immediate measure, he can pass an order of suspension for a period of 3 months - No illegality in impugned order - Writ petition dismissed.
|
M. Balaram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Hyderabad and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 04 Aug 2010]
|
R. Upendra vs A. Govardhan Reddy and another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Aug 2010]
Carriers & Transportation - Enhancement of compensation - Petitioner, aged 10 years, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident - Claim petition was filed against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle - Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence that the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle was the cause for accident and granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner with interest at 12% p.a. - Present appeal - Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on lower side as no compensation awarded for pain and suffering or medical expenses or permanent disability or loss of earnings, etc.? - Held, the compensation awarded in the present case is low - Magnitude and gravity of the injuries, the consequences which the injuries had inflicted on the physical and mental well-being and future life of the injured and all other relevant factors relating to the injuries would influence the assessment of compensation - Admittedly the victim was a student and in the ordinary course of human events, the boy could have pursued his studies to their logical conclusion to earn a decent livelihood in future; the amputation of the leg, would have a serious adverse impact on such future prospects - Award modified and further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. awarded - Appeal allowed.
|
Thumu Srikanth vs Akula Babu
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Aug 2010]
|
Pothina Yella Rao vs A.P. Ravindranath and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Aug 2010]
|
Deepa Paresh Chedda, W/o Paresh Chedda vs Secretary to Government, External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Aug 2010]
|
Thota Srinivasa Rao vs Director, Telugu Academy, Hyderabad and another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Aug 2010]
|
Rayala Venkataratnam and others vs State of A.P., Rep. by the Principal Secretary To Government, I & CAD (PWLA-1) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Aug 2010]
|
N. Narsingarao vs Srinivasa Chary and another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2010]
|
New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Tadepalliguden, West Godavai vs Peeka Naga Raju S/o Galeeb, West Godavari and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 20 Jul 2010]
|
Pyla Bangarraju vs Pyla Venkata Ramakrishna and another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 19 Jul 2010]
|
M. Jaganath Reddy and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented, by its Principal Secretary to Government & Commissioner for Industrial Promotion (I/C), Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2010]
|
Angadi Srinivasa Rao S/o Chennaiah and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2010]
|
MMTC Limited, New Delhi vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam, A.P., Rep. by its Chairman and M.D.
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Jul 2010]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 11(5) and (6) - Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 2006 - Agreement executed between the applicant and respondent for sale of Low Ash Metallurgical Coke - Dispute arose between the parties with regard to price conversion factor - Applicant sought respondent's consent for referring the dispute to Permanent Machinery of Arbitration as per the guidelines issued by Department of Public Enterprise - Respondent took stand that all payments admissible as per the terms of the agreement released and no amounts withheld - Arbitration clause invoked by applicant by nominating its arbitrator and calling upon the respondent to appoint its arbitrator - Respondent expressed its inability to appoint its arbitrator - Application filed u/s. 11(5) and (6) of the Act r/w Scheme, 2006 seeking for constitution of a panel of three arbitrators in terms of the agreement - Held, in case of disputes between states inter se and Government undertakings inter se, they are required to be examined by High power committee and it is only after clearance of the high power committee, the aggrieved party can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and since in the instant case the applicant has already made a request to the High Power committee to resolve the dispute, the applicant has to await the outcome of alternative dispute resolution mechanism before initiating proceedings in a Court of law - Instant application premature - Application dismissed.
|
National Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad vs K. Chandrakala and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2010]
Insurance - Carriers & Transportation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accidental claim - Rash and negligent driving - Liability to pay compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Deceased, agriculturist, died in a motor vehicle accident - Claim petition filed by wife and children of deceased - Claimants pleaded that deceased engaged tractor for harvesting body - On date of accident, driver of tractor was driving vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit deceased which resulted in his dearth - Claim petition was filed - Insurance Company contended that the deceased should be considered as owner within meaning of s. 2(30) of 1988 Act as vehicle was in his possession as lease-holder - Tribunal awarded Rs.4,08,000/- towards pecuniary loss, Rs.15,000/- in favour of claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport charges, in all, a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- was granted - Present appeal - Held, expression 'owner', in a given case is a person who has actual possession and control over vehicle and under whose direction and command, driver is obliged to operate vehicle - By mere use of vehicle without there being agreement, under which both corporal and managerial possession has been handed over, hirer cannot be considered as "owner" within meaning of s. 2(30) of 1988 Act - Burden lies on Insurance Company to establish that vehicle was given on lease to deceased and that he was in possession of vehicle under that agreement - It should be established that registered owner parted with vehicle to deceased with actual control of vehicle and driver was under directions and commands of deceased - In the present case, deceased was admittedly not a registered owner nor a minor - It cannot be said that there existed agreement between deceased and registered owner of vehicle and rights and obligations of deceased are under agreement - Hence, deceased cannot be considered as owner within meaning of s. 2(30) of 1988 Act therefore Insurance Company was jointly liable - However,, claimants not entitled to enhancement of compensation - Appeal dismissed.
|
National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada, through Local Branch Office, Khammam vs (1) Veldi Chandra Sekhar S/o Balaiah Warangal; (2) Veldi Vara Laxmi W/o Chandra Sekhar Warangal
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2010]
|
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry vs Goru Suryakantham and others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2010]
|
|