09_files/header.htm") h2; mso-first- header:url("./wp_17085_2009_files/header.htm") fh2; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section2 {page:Section2;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:1; mso- list-template-ids:1;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level- text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.3in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin- left:.3in; text-indent:-.3in;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.4in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.4in; text-indent:-.4in;} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number- format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number- position:left; margin-left:.5in; text-indent:-.5in;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level- number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.6in; mso-level- number-position:left; margin-left:.6in; text-indent:-.6in;} @list l0:level5 {mso- level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.7in; mso- level-number-position:left; margin-left:.7in; text-indent:-.7in;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab-stop:.8in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.8in; text-indent:-.8in;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level-tab- stop:.9in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.9in; text-indent:-.9in;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso-level- tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:1.0in; text-indent:- 1.0in;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:none; mso-level-text:""; mso- level-tab-stop:1.1in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:1.1in; text- indent:-1.1in;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.17085 of 2009 08-09-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Pravin Electrical Private Limited rep. by its Accounts Manager Rejipadman ...Petitioner vs. The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.17085 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the writ petition as it has already complied with the conditional order dated 20-06-2009 passed by the STAT Hyderabad in TMP No.171 of 2009 in T.A.No.184 of 2009 in respect of the assessment year 2007-08. In view of the submission the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 8th SEPTEMBER 2009. TSNR o:p> Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. Conflicting opinions existed, as to the award of interest, in the claims presented under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. One view was that the Tribunal has the discretion to stipulate the date with effect from which, the interest would accrue and that a claimant does not have the right to insist on award of interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition. In certain cases, it was observed that interest must be awarded from the date of presentation of the claim. The controversy, or the difference of opinion, has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through its judgment, dated 14.05.2009, in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 209 (arising out of SLP © No.26654 of 2008). It was held that the amount awarded as compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal shall carry interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition, at 6%, per annum, and from the date of award, till the date of realization, at 9%, per annum. Following the same, the appeal is allowed in part, directing that the amount, awarded as compensation by the Tribunal, in favour of the appellants, shall carry interest at 6%, per annum, from the date of presentation of the claim petition, till the date of award, and thereafter, at 9%, per annum, till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 7th SEPTEMBER, 2009. kvni þÿ​ÕÍÕœ.​“—​+,ù®0@​h​p​|​„​Œ​”​œ​¤​¬​´ ¼​"​ä​hc​F​æ​ZInsurer cannot file appeal u/s 173 of MV Act, 1988 without prior permission from Tribunal​Title​ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10828 of 2002 Dated:08.09.2009 Between: Yeruvu Venkata Subbaiah. …Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10828 of 2002 ORDER: This is an old matter of 2002. When the matter was listed on 07.09.2009, learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent and there was no representation. The matter was, therefore, directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Today the matter is appearing under the said caption. In spite of the same, none appears for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed for default/non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.09.2009 vs a'> (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.08.2009 vs Ø​à è​%​ä​/COURT MASTERS AND PERSONAL SECRETARIES SECTION​ ​1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ​Title​