Andhra Pradesh Court June 1985 Judgments
N. Ranga Rao Vs. Government of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ1AP
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. 'To be' or 'not to be' was the question with which like Hamlet, the appellant was confronted with and in the conflagration thereof he opted to relinquish his office as Major in Army EME to assuage from domestic tribulations and sent letter dated 29th October, 1982 for voluntary retirement. Though he retraced the step after reflection he is landed in legal tangle and knocked the door of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to extricate therefrom. For the elaboration thereof, it is necessary to delineate in a nutshell the undisputed facts : While having Bachelor's course of Engineering and N.C.C., the appellant had the short service commission on 22nd February, 1965 and in a short span scaled over to higher echelons of service in quick succession, as a Major and was discharging his duties in the Military College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering at Secunderabad. He has exhibited undaunted exemplary valour on war front in 1971 and devotion to duty unmind...
Tag this Judgment!J.H. Krishna Murthy (Deceased by LR's) Vs. Feroz Khan (Deceased by LR' ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986AP83
Seetharam Reddy, J.1. In this case on the death of the appellant, Sri J. H. Krishna Murthy, the aforesaid petition has been filed for bringing his legal representatives, petitioners Nos. 1 to 2, on record in the aforesaid C. C. C. A. This petition came up before the Court of the Deputy Registrar on 16-4-1985. The name of Sri Challa Seetharamaiah, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, appeared in the cause-list and it was not contested. Though it is stated by the learned counsel that he was not present on that day, the Deputy Registrar ordered the said petition on the ground that it was not contested on that day. The objection now advanced by Sri Challa Seetharamaiah is based on the provisions in R. 12 (16) of the Rules in Appellate jurisdiction of this High Court, which reads :'(16). To enter in the record the name of the representative of a deceased appellant, petitioner or respondent, except in cases under appeal to the Supreme Court :Provided that contested applications and ap...
Tag this Judgment!Madineni Kondaiah and ors. Etc. Vs. Yaseen Fatima and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC501
Raghuvir, J.1. (for himself and on behalf of Sardar Ali Khan, J.) C.M.A. No. 302 of 1976) : Naseeruddin Hussain was an employee in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce. He was on his way to office on a cycle on October 11, 1973. At 10-45 a.m. be was at Shah Inayat Ganj Police Station. The vehicle (lorry) ADT 263 was in front of him on the road. There was another lorry APT 7879 behind him. Mannu Singh, a Police Constable No. 2626 of Shah Inayat Ganj Police Station, stopped ADT 263. The Constable directed the driver of the vehicle to proceed on the 'correct side' of the highway. The driver of Apr 263 thereupon reversed the motion of the vehicle. He swerved the vehicle and dashed APT 7879 and hit Naseeruddin. Due to injuries received at the accident on the same day at the hospital Naseeruddin died. His spouse and her eight children claimed damages before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They were awarded Rs. 32,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal, inter alia, ordered M. Kon...
Tag this Judgment!Gattu Prabhakar and anr. Vs. Thummanapalli Brahmaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986AP173; [1987]62CompCas710(AP)
1. This is an appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle against whom an order has been passed by the Tribunal imposing the liability under S. 92-A of the Act. The owner is not questioning his own liability nor is he questioning the entitlement of the persons who have claimed the compensation. But, he is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal to the extent it has held that the Insurance Company is not liable for the liability without fault under S. 92-A of the Act. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company.2. In an accident on 6-9-1983 with Lorry API 962 the deceased aged 25 years was killed. His parents, sisters and unmarried brother have filed a claim petition O. P. No. 4930/1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar District u/s. 92-A of the Act impleading the owner as well as the Insurance Company as respondents. The fact that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Co...
Tag this Judgment!G. Prabhakar and anr. Vs. Thummanapalli Brahmaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC346
Upendralal Waghray, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle against whom an order has been passed by the Tribunal imposing the liability under Section 92-A of the Act. The owner is not questioning his own liability nor is he questioning the entitlement of the persons who have claimed the compensation. But, he is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal to the extent it has held that the insurance company is not liable for the liability without fault under Section 92-A of the Act. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the insurance company,2. In an accident on 6-9-1983 with lorry API 962 the deceased aged 25 years was killed. His parents, sisters and unmarried brothers have filed a claim petition O.P. No. 493 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar District under Section 92-A of the Act, imp leading the owner as well as the insurance company as respondent. The fact that the vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Seethamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC423; [1988]63CompCas47(AP)
Ramaswamy, J.1. The appellant-insurance company is assailing the legality of the award passed by the Tribunal below raising a substantial question of law based on endorsement No..14(a) attached to the policy, namely, that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to a person unauthorisedly travelling in the vehicle unless it is covered by the contract as per the endorsement and premium paid. The endorsement reads as follows: 'In consideration of the payment of an additional premium and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section II 1(b) and (c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability under statute (except the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of death or bodily injury to: (1) Any employee of the within named insured who is not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and subsequent amendments to that Act prior to the date of this endo...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Chemical Products Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: [1991]191ITR382(AP)
Amareswari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the assessee and the Income-tax Department. 2. These writ petition are filed against the orders of the Income-tax Officer levying interest under section 139 and 258(sic) of the Income-tax Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the interest was levied without giving then any opportunity. Under rules 40 and 117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, framed under the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer is vested with discretion to waive or reduce interest under certain circumstances. By implication, these rules require that an opportunity must be given to the assessee to show cause why interest should not be levied or to satisfy the Income-tax Officer that there is a case for waiver or reduction. In these cases, no opportunity was given. We, therefore, quash the orders to the extent of interest only. We give fifteen days' time from today to the petitioners to file representations before the concerned Officers. No further notice need be issued by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Latcha Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas736(AP)
Sriramulu, J. 1. This is a petition for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-insurance company in C.C. No. 271 of 1983, on the file of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srikakulam. 2. On June 16, 1981, at about 9-30 a.m. near Etcherla Police Quarters in Srikakulam, a motor accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry No. APV 6667 by its driver and one, P. Rajagopalaran came under the left back wheel of the lorry and died on the spot. The wife and the two minor sons of the said Rajagopalarao filed an accident claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District judge), Srikakulam, against the owner, driver of the lorry and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Srikakulam. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants against the owner and driver of the lorry but the claim against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed on the ground that the insurance cover had expired on March 12, 198 1, where...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›