Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The information providing here is for general awareness. Author is not responsible for any consequence through use or misuse of the same. This blog is designed for general information only. The information presented at this blog should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advices regarding their individual legal issues.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

DIRECTED TO PAY ALL TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE DECEASED FAMILY MEMBERS

The applicant submits that he  is working as Police Constable at Chitvel P.S.  YSR District Kadapa.   While the applicant was working at KondapuramPolice Station in the year 1992, he  fell sick  from 29-6-1992  to 26-10-1993 in piece meal. the same was informed to his superiors. When he approached for fresh passport to continue on leave, the station house officer, Kondapuram refused the same  on the ground that the Circle Inspector of Police instructed him not to give medical pass port.  He never absent to his duty.   The applicant was taken on duty in the year 1996.   In the  mean while   a criminal cases  U/s. 420 of IPC and Cr. U/s.147, 148, 448,324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC  of Kondapura PS on the ground that the applicant was entered  into the house of private person   and further charged that the applicant was entered agreement with one person i.e. Class - I contractor  to do business of exporting iron-scrap  from South Central railways Secundrabad filing Tenders on his name in April 1993 and October 1993 were registered  cases against the applicant.  and violated Rule 9 (4) and 10 of APCS (conduct ) Rules 1964. 

(b)     The applicant submit that   he never involved in criminal case and the alleged false case against  the applicant was acquitted.  He neither entered into the house of private person  nor caused bleeding  injuries due to grudges in the business of iron scrap  and thus the provision  of Rule 3  (1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 will not applicable  and in the year April and October 1993   The applicant submit that he  was very much in service  up to 1999.  if the charges are true  they ought to have initiate disciplinary action immediately and   the 2nd respondent  has issued the above    charge dt. 28-1-2011   after laps of 6 years i.e. in the year 1999  and also re-opened and appointed Enquiry Officer after laps of 17 years is illegal arbitrary and liable to be setaside   and which is  contrary to reported Supreme Court judgment.  Due to ill fate of the applicant, the applicant was dismissed from service in the year 2000 vide proceeding No. C.dt. 10-7-2000.  Against the said dismissal order the applicant was filed O.A.No. 4637/2000 and the same was allowed by setting aside the alleged  charge and against the order of the  Tribunal,  the respondents has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High court by way of Writ petition and the same was dismissed as follows.
“ In this background of the matter, We feel that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.  Hence this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed No costs”.
After the above dismissal of the W.P. which was filed by the respondents  the applicant was reinstated  into service on dt.9-11-2010.  The applicant is in service and continued as such.

(c )    The applicant submit that the 2nd respondent has issued another  false charge memo dt. 2-2-2011  that the applicant was deserted from service without leave or permission and without intimating him where abouts to his superiors from 29-6-1992 to 19-7-1992 and thereby  violated rule 3 (1 ) of APCS (Conduct )Rules 1964.  In  this connection the applicant submit that he  reported sick in the year 1992  and continued to avail medical leave up to 26-10-1993.  Thereafter the respondents  treated his leave as “ Leave without pay ” and he was in service up to 1999.    Keeping grudge in mind  against the applicant, the respondents again re-opened false charges and asking him to submit explanation in the year 2011 i.e. after laps of 17 and 18  years  as illegal and arbitrary and violation reported supreme court judgment and Article  16, 21 and 311(2 )  of Constitution of India.  Thus above charges are liable to be set-aside. 

The respondents contended that the charge sheet was issued in the year 1999, for some other charge the applicant was dismissed from service. Later he was reinstated in service. Therefore the earlier charge for period of 21 days was reopened and appointed enquiry officer for conducting enquiry in the matter.  The applicant was challenged the appointment of Enquiry officer before the Hon’ble Tribunal and got interim suspension of the E.O. thereafter the applicant was died Legal Heirs of the applicant was brought on record.  The Tribunal after hearing the matter, charges dt 28-1-2011 is setasided on ground that after laps of 18 years can not be opened and O A is disposed of with a direction directing the respondents to all terminal benefit to the applicant’s family members with in period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  The above case is argued by me on behalf of the applicant and got favorable order in favour of the applicant.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

DIRECTED THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO PAY

The complainant has booked 4 kgs silver @77,500/- kg and paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- by cash to the Opposite Party on 25-04-2011.  Balance of Rs. 10,000/- 9-5-2011.  The Opposite Party  was endorsed the same and delivered the 4 kgs silver to the complainant on 09-05-2011 without issuing proper receipts/tax invoices and other government receipts except the estimate/quotation bill dated 09-05-2011. But the OP has issued receipt for 4 kgs silver @55,000/- as on the date of delivery date i.e. 9-5-2011. Further  the OP never issued sale bill on delivery date though the complainant insisted for issuance of sale bill.  At the time of sale bill the OP assured to the complainant that if any defect   he will be take back the silver. After  45 days the  has issued sale bill   showing that  the complainant was purchased  4 silver  @ 55,000/-. Neither warranty nor guarantee card was issued by the OP to the complainant. Within a year  the said silver turned as block Colour. In spite of several requests made by the complainant that to take back the silver, but  the Opposite Party refused to take back. Before court of law The complainant has contended that the OP has to issued sale bill without mentioning  on the sale  pure or standard silver, further the OP has issued tax invoce bill other than his shop is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further the  complainant contended that the OP adopted dubious method, unfair trade practice,  malpractice in his business.  Therefore the action of the OP is contrary to reported Judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission of A.P. The OP has denied the allegation  of the complainant contended that he never issued some of them i.e. estimate quotation and  tax invoice bill and further he never adopted unfair trade practice and malpractices  in his business.  Therefore requested the court to dismiss the complaint.  The Hon’ble district Forum after considering contentions raised by the both the parties and found that  there was a  deficiency in service, unfair trade Practice and malpractices on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore  directed the compliant is allowed and directed  the Opposite party to  pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/-  @ 9% interest to the complainant/Appellant. Rs. 2000/- as legal expenses. The above case was argued by me and got favorable order in favour of complainant.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

DISMISSED WRIT PETITION

The Petitioner  filed Writ Petition to quash the ratification order of the Wakf Board the action of the Muthuvalli in appointing the Naib Muthuvalli in Bajibaba Aulia Pedakakani, Guntur District.  The contention of the writ petitioner (Mother of the Muthuwalli) is that Naib Muthuwalli (deputy) appointed by the Wakf Board. Further contended that as understanding by the family members of the writ petitioner the Muthuwalli was appointed.  Further after appointment of the Muthuwalli (2nd respondent) certain disputes arose between writpetition and Muthuwalli, as advised by the elders of the community people, an agreement was reached that the writ petition and Muthuwalli act as joint Muthuwallies of the Darga.  The contention of the respondent no. 2 and 3 that such agreement never recognized by the Wakf Board, further there was no such agreement between the Board and writ Petitioner and her family members.   The said agreement not registered one.  After hearing the matter the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dismissed the Writ petition on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter further held that writ petition has no locus standi and accordingly writ petition is dismissed.  The above case is argued by me on behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3 and got favorable orders.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT /OPPOSITE PARTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT/CONSUMER

The Complaint/Consumer was purchased a plot from the Developer/Builder and paid Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently the builder was registered a plot instead of allotted/confirmed plot.  The complainant, was made request builder to register the allotted plot. But the builder never heed the request of the complainant.  Then the compliant has approached the Forum and the Forum  dismissed the same.  Against the order of the Forum the complainant has filed Appeal.  After enquiry, the appellate court has found that the Opposite party adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on his part and setasided the order of the Forum and allowed the appeal and  directed the Opposite party to an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/-  @ 9% interest to the complainant/Appellant. Further directed to Opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- as cost The above case was argued by me on behalf of the Appellant/complainant and got favorable orders.

Monday, February 4, 2013

BAIL GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER


Against the petitioner/accused a crime was registered U/s. 406,420, 323 and 506 in Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad.  He was arrested and remanded to the Judicial custody. The  Court below dismissed a bail application of the petitioner on the ground that this is not a stage to grant bail to the petitioner.  Questioning the same, he approached to the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. by way of Crl.p and contended that the complainant has gone back on the original terms of the development agreement and therefore, he is  a defaulting party.  The learned counsel took me to the Photostat copy of the development agreement-cum-gener5al power of Attorney dated in support of his contention.  The learned public prosecutor opposed the application. The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant relates to the terms of the development agreement.  In that view of the matter I m inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.  Accordingly the criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court below Nampally  Hyderabad and on further condition that the petition shall appear before the Station House Officer, Banhjara Hills P.s. once in a week i.e. on every Stauraday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00.p.m. for four weeks or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the  petitioner/accused before the both the courts and obtained favorable order.