Andhra Pradesh Court February 1986 Judgments
Sambasiva Rao (P) Vs. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ547AP
1. The petitioner herein seeks a declaration that the order passed on 6 June, 1985, by the Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam, the first respondent herein, terminating the petitioner's services with effect from 27th February, 1985, was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he should be deemed to be continuing in service of the first respondent continuously. 2. The petitioner passed M.B.B.S., from the Andhra University in the year 1975. He was appointed by the first respondent as a medical officer temporarily in October 1976. Although the appointment was initially said to be for a period of ten weeks he was continued in service. In July 1980, the first respondent advertised for two posts of medical officers for appointment on regular basis. The petitioner submitted his representation on 10th July, 1980, requesting for absorption as regular medical officer. The first respondent sent a communication to the petitioner, dated 5th August, 1980, stating that ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Sheel Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC398(AP)
A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. In some of these writ petitions, the validity of section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), inserted by Act No. 11 of 1984 with effect from 8th July, 1983, is questioned. In some of them, apart from the validity of section 6-C, the legality and propriety of inclusion of the excise duty on beer in the turnover of the dealer is questioned. In the rest of the cases, either the revised assessments made under section 20 of the Act levying sales tax on the value of the packing material at the rate applicable to the goods packed for the period prior to the insertion of section 6-C or the show cause notices issued by the concerned authority, proposing to revise the assessments made for the period anterior to the insertion of section 6-C are assailed. 2. The petitioners are either the manufacturers of or dealers in either beer or cement. The beer is sold in bottles packed in cartons whereas cement is sold in gunnies. Section 5 of ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Sailaja Vs. Principal, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1986AP209
ORDER1. An interesting interaction between the statute and the constitutional law the former attempting to entrench into the latter's ambit and the latter to elbow it out is the crux of the controversy and which of it would succeed is the area of consideration.2. This is a writ petition to quash the proceedings of the Principal, Kurnool Medical College, dated August 28, 1985, by Certiorari and Mandamus to direct the Director, Backward Class Welfare, the second respondent, to forthwith certify the petitioner's social status as Backward Class Group 'D' by virtue of her adoption to B. Sivaramaiah, a Shepard by caste, for her admission into the First Year M.B.B.S. Course for the year 1985-86.3. The petitioner, A.S. Sailaja is the daughter of A.S. Radhakrishna, an advocate of Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. She was born on February 21, 1967, brought up and was educated by her natural father till March 16, 1985 and she passed her Intermediate in March 1984 with English as medium of instruction. ...
Tag this Judgment!Akula Rangappa (Died by L.Rs.) Akula Satyamaiah and ors. Vs. Narayana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1988AP314
ORDER1. A. Rangappa obtained a money decree against the respondent and he also filed E.P. No. 50/83 to execute the decree Pending execution, he died on 13-11-1983 intestate leaving behind him, his son the first petitioner, his widow the 2nd petitioner and three daughters, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. They filed E.A. No. 461'84 under O. 22, R. 3. C. P.C. to bring them on record as legal representatives, so as to enable them to proceed with the execution of the decree. The court below dismissed the application holding that they did not obtain succession certificate and under S. 214(1)(b) of the Indian, Succession Act, 1925, for short the 'Act' placing reliance on a decision reported in S. Rajyalakshmi v. S. Sitamahalakshmi, : AIR1976AP361 . Hence this revision. 2. Sri Suryanarayana learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the court below contends that the respondent is entitled to protect himself from resisting the application in the absence of any succession c...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Khasim Bi Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986AP345
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The short question, which is of general importance that arises for our consideration is whether under S. 438 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 the High Court or the Session s Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person after the competent criminal court has taken cognizance of the case and has issued process, viz., warrant for arrest of that person.2. A Division Bench consisting of Jeevan Reddy J., and Upendralal Waghray, J. Disagreed with the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of this court consisting of Chennakesav Reddy J., as he then was and Rama Rao J., in Kamalakara Rao v. State of A. P. (1983) 1 APLJ 97 : (1983 Cri LJ 872) and consequently referred the question to the Full Bench. Before we proceed to consider the scope of S. 438, Cr. P. C., and several points urged, it is necessary to set out a few more details as to how this matter has come up before us. To start with, Madhusudan Rao, J., in N. Dasaratha Reddy v. State, (1975) 2 APLJ (HC) 214 held th...
Tag this Judgment!Uravakonda Vijayaraj Paul Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2104
ORDERJayachandra Reddy, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this revision is : Whether under Section 306(4) of the Cri PC the examination of an approver as a witness by the Committing Magistrate is mandatory before he passes the order of Committal? The question arises under the following circumstances.2. Eight accused in P.R.C. No. 8 of 1981 on the file of the Prll. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad East and North were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 364, 302 read with Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC for abduction and murder of one Katham Anjaneyulu on Dec. 5, 1980. The approver Originally the eighth accused Palla Narasimhareddy was tendered pardon and his statement was recorded on Nov. 6 1982 and the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. The same was numbered as S.C. No. 18 of 1983 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, before whom questioning the order of committal the fifth accused fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›