Andhra Pradesh Court June 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramalingaiah and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1989AP346
ORDER1. The ten petitioners in this case are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac-1-82 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/2 to 133/5 and 132/6 Yanada Village, Visakhapalnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners 1 and 2 have jointly purchased an extent of Ac. 1-06 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/6 and 133/3 from the petitioners 4 and 5 under a registered document No. 1212, dated 31-1-1985 after paying considerable amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of an extent of Ac.0-76 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/4, 133/5 and 132/6of the same village. Before purchasing the land, petitioners vendees had obtained permission from the Urban Ceiling authorities vide C.C. No. 7080/82 dated 10-51982. The lands are situate outside Visakhapatnam Municipal limits and do not attract the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. All the petitioners herein pray for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award No. 35/86 dated 24-12-1987 passed by th...
Pragathi Enterprises and anr. Vs. Sri Balaji Trading Company Rep. by I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1989
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT462
ORDERJagannadha Rao, J. 1. The appellants seek to prefer an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned single judge refusing to review the final order passed in a revision preferred to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The registry has raised an objection stating that inasmuch as a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the main order passed in the civil revision petition, the appellants cannot maintain a Letters Patent Appeal against the order refusing to review the said order. The appellants' counsel then requested that the matter may be placed before the Court for appropriate orders. Therefore the matter has been posted before us. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an order refusing to review the judgment is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Anand, : [1962]45ITR414(SC) He also submits that the power of r...
R. Subrahmanyam Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT632
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Copyist in the unit of Ananthapur district and is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 issued in G.O.Ms.206, Home (Courts-A) dated February 7,1964, for short, 'the Rules'. Under Category 5, Division IV, in Muffassal Courts and offices of Muffassal Public Prosecutor and Government Pleaders, the appointment to the posts of Clerks (now Junior Assistants), Assistant Nazirs, Junior Superintendents of Copyists, III Grade Clerks and III Grade Typists and Steno-Typists is by way of promotion from Assistant Superintendents of Copists, Examiners, Amins, Readers and Copyists, or by direct recruitment or for special reasons recruitment by transfer from any other service. When a vacancy to the post of Typist arose, the petitioner was promoted by proceedings dated March 12,1985 and posted to Sub-Court, Penukonda and he joined in that post on March 23,1985. While working as such, the petitioner in his applicati...
Ravindra Fertilisers Co. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT33
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner is a trader in fertilizers. On October 22, 1983, the vigilance authorities have laid a trap, inspected the premises of the petitioner and he was found to be selling the fertilizers in excess of the price fixed therefor and therefore seized the goods (Urea) and placed them before the Collector under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) for short, 'the Act'. After giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector confiscated the entire 194 1/2 bags of Urea. On appeal under Section 7C of the Act, it was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Assailing the legality of the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming that of the Collector, the writ petition has been filed.2. Sri Ashok, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the appellate authority is the fact finding authority constituted under Section 7-C of the Act. The authority is bound to consider the evidence in the strict sense. The evidence in this ca...
The Management of Netha Spinning Mills Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT101
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition even at the threshold stage. The petitioner is the management. There is a charter of demands made by the majority union on April 14,1986 and pursuant to which proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') were initiated by the Commissioner of Labour resulting in settlement under Section 12(3). The Settlement was signed on May 13,1987 by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of the Union, two persons on behalf of the management and the Commissioner of Labour incorporating various terms including rationalization of the work load, reorganization of the departments and the consequential designations of the employees. After the settlement was singed, it would be binding and operative by operation of Section 18(3) of the Act for a period of three years starting from May 13,1987 to May 12,1990. It is also the case of the petitioner that the settle...
Sri Balaji Traders and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ332
1. This is an appeal filed by the three accused who have been convicted in S.T.C. No. 1/87 on the file of the Spl. Judge for cases under Essential Commodities Act, Vizianagaram. The Spl. Judge-cum-District & Sessions Judge by a judgment dt. 25th March, 1988 convicted A-I the firm of Sri Balaji Traders and sentenced the firm to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the Managing Partner of A1 firm viz., A-2 shall undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months. A-2 the Managing Partner of the firm is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 5 years under S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and condition No. 3(i)(iv) of the licence issued thereunder. A-3 is the clerk of the firm is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of one year. 2. The facts relevant for the case are as follows : The 1st accused Sri Balaji Traders, is a licenced dea...
Kothri (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Second Additional Judge-cum-appellate Authori ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ604AP
1. The petitioner is a company. On September 24, 1980, as it was 'Andhra Bandh Day' the respondents, 27 workmen, were prevented from attending to their duties, and as a result they did not present themselves for duty for which the petitioner-company, in exercise of its power under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936) (for short 'the Act'), deducted the wages of the workmen. Assailing the legality thereof, an application under Section 15 of the Act was filed before the competent authority. The competent authority directed by its order dated July 31, 1982, to make payment of wages for the said day and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 to each of the workmen as compensation and costs. On appeal, it was confirmed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kurnoor. As against the said appellate order, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by both the cour...
Rula Krishi Kendra Vs. Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-1989
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ393AP
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner, admittedly, has established an agricultural farm in which he continuously and systematically carries on the activities of rearing grape plantations, crop dairy farming and agricultural farming. He employs ten or more employees in the farm. A notice was given covering the petitioner's establishment under the Payment of Gratuity Act 39 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'). Assailing the jurisdiction to issue the notice covering the farm as an establishment under the Act, the petitioner canvassed before the controlling authority, contending that it is not an establishment or a commercial establishment and therefore, it is not 'establishment' or a 'shop' under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act and therefore, the coverage is illegal and without jurisdiction. That contention was found favour with the controlling authority, against which an appeal was carried to the appellate authority, which reversed the finding of the Controlling Authority and held that the petitio...
M. Mallesu Vs. Kamalapuram Mohammed HussaIn and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990AP376
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder-auction-purchaser. This application is filed questioning the order passed by the lower Court refusing to direct the judgment-debtor-respondent to pay to the petitioner the poundage amount collected at the time of the sale held by the Court.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The property which was brought to sale was admittedly partnership property of a firm in which there were two partners. The creditor obtained a money-decree and brought the properties to sale. As the property was partnership property, law required the procedure under O. XXI, R. 49 to be followed. Instead of following the same, the decree-holder got the properties sold. Before the same was confirmed, the judgment-debtor-respondent approached this Court, and at that stage, the respondent took notice in the High Court and then applied in the lower Court for advancing the date of sale and the date was advanced and sale was held. In the sale, the decree-hold...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›