Andhra Pradesh Court December 1990 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.
N. Ch. Mouli Vs. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T. Corpn.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT492; 1991(1)ALT492; [1991(63)FLR125]; (1993)IIILLJ676AP; (1993)IIILLJ676SC
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J. 1. Petitioners challenge an Order No. PA/398(7)/90-TKL Dt. 30.11.1990 made by the respondent effecting deduction of their wages for eight days under Section 9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, for participation in an illegal strike from 17th to 19th of October, 1990. The facts leading to the impugned order are the following:Petitioners are members of A.P.S.R.T.C. National Mazdoor Union. One of their members was suspended on 12.10.1990 pending disciplinary action. On the allegation that the management discriminated against (at the admission stage) their member, in that a conductor who was also involved in the same incident but belonging to a different trade union, viz., A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees' Union was shielded by the management and that amounted to unfair labour practice. The petitioners struck work without notice from 17th to 19th October, 1990. The strike was withdrawn when the management relented and withdrew the suspension of the driver. On 25.10.1990, the re...
Olivia Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT345; (1995)IIILLJ68AP
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J. 1. The question that arises in this batch of Criminal Petitions is, whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State for actions resultant of legislative obligations so as to get over the prosecutions in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P.C. during the course of administration of Criminal Justice.2. The facts that gave rise to this question are : In 1984 when the petitioner started the school, by name H. Rosetle English Medium School, Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') exempted application of its provision to establishments employing 20 to 50 persons until expiry of five years from the date of setting up of the establishment. However, in June 1988 the said section underwent an amendment by Act 33 of 1988 whereby the period of exemption was reduced from 'five years' to 'three years'. In view of this amendment, soon after expiry of the three years t...
Chirapareddi Veeramma and ors. Vs. Sk. Mahaboob Subhani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT366
ORDERJagannadha Rao, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 623/90. The suit was one for grant of permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. Pending suit the petitioners filed IA. No. 849/90 for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants-respondents filed a counter stating that the plaintiffs are not in possession and that they (defendants) are in possession. After mentioning the facts of the case and the previous litigation between the parties, the learned District Munsif stated that it may not be good for the court to give a finding as to whether the plaintiffs or defendants are in possession and that therefore it would be better to direct maintenance of the 'status quo'. That order was passed on 16-10-1990. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1077/90 for grant of police aid and directions to the Station House Officer, Chebrole to see that the orders in IA. No....
P.R. Prasad and ors., Advocates and Advocates Associations Vs. the Uni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT528
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. The common prayer in this batch of writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that the Advocates are entitled to be classified under 'Non-OYT Special' Category for allotment of Telephones and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent-General Manager, Telephones, Telephone Bhavan, Hyderabad, to register the applications of the petitioners on the respective dates when they were made, under Non-OYT Special category and to grant telephone connections forthwith.2. All the petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions are Advocates, who have been practising in various courts from a considerably long time.3. The provision of telephone connections is regulated by the rules and instructions framed by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, as amended from time to time Telephone Allotment Rules, 1980 have been framed and several amendments have been effected in the rules by the Department over the period of ten years. It needs to be mad...
Polineni Raghavarao Vs. the Joint Collector, Prakasham Dist., Ongole a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP227
ORDER1. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision against the impugned order before the District Collector. The petitioner was selected as a fair price shop dealer by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Against the order, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector allowed the appeal. The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the Joint Collector to pass the order allowing the appeal filed by the fourth respondent.2. The contention of the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction to pass the impugned order cannot be accepted. The Joint collector has certainly got jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the orders made by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the case of fair price shops, when interviews are held, one person has to be selected, The other person who is not selected is the aggrieved person. He has got a right of appeal against the order of selection. In this case, the petitioner, being the aggrieved person is entitled ...
Gude Lakshmi Basava Poornima Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT368
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether filing of a charge-sheet by the police is a bar for the court to take cognizance of the offence on a private complaint filed.2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondents alleging certain offences under Sections 416, 418, 419, 465, 466, 468, 406 and 420 r/w 109 I.P.C. The lower court after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner dismissed the complaint on the ground that at the instance of some person the case was registered by the police, investigation was made and a charge-sheet was also filed and therefore it is not desirable to take the complaint on file and issue process. It is this order that is subject matter of challenge in this revision.3. As submitted by Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, the court on receipt of a complaint filed shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and thereafter the court, if thi...
Hakim and Co. Vs. Government of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP249; 1991(1)ALT383
1. This is an appeal arising out of the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 29-10-1987. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the Railway authorities and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Conservator of Forests, to accept the consignment of Rosa Extract Perfume (otherwise as Rosa Oil) booked by the petitioner from Nampally Railway Parcel Office to the State of Maharashtra by exercising the authority vested in them instead of illegally refusing to accept the consignments referring to Circular No. CC-285-Dev-8-83-DRM's/C/BG/Office, Secunderabad, dated 5-8-1983.The impugned circular reads as follows:--'SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, No. CC-285-Dev-8-83DRM's/ C/ BG/ Office, SC.Date: 5-8-1983. Sub:-- Transportation of Rosa Oil. It is reported that Rosa Oil is being booked to various places like Bombay without valid permit issued by ...
Nakka Hanumanthu and anr. Vs. Karnati Shankariah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT540
ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1 In this Civil Revision Petition, the decision of the trial court regarding the marking of a document put to the witness is questioned. P.W. 1, the plaintiff, was sought to be confronted with the said document, an agreement of sale allegedly executed by P.W. 1 in favour of a defendant, while being cross-examined on behalf of that defendant. The trial court held that the said document should be marked through that defendant or witness on his behalf and not through a witness on the plaintiff's side while he was being cross-examined, when he denied knowledge of it. This is not a case where only the signature portion of a document was put to the witness for eliciting his answer as to whether the signature was his or not.2. I am of the view that the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit because there is no case decided.3. The Supreme Court held in Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors, : [1970]1SCR435 referring to its decision in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dh...
M.A. Dharman, Son of Appukuttan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh by Secreta ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT315
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions filed for issue of writs of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce before this Court, respectively, (1) Anwar Ismail, s/o Ismail, (2) Dawood Mohammed, s/o Siddiqui, (3) Dawood, s/o Yusuf, (4) Ishaq, s/o Omar, (5) Baktar Ahmad Mujawar Khan, s/o Mujawar Khan, (6) Kasim Mohammed s/o Shaik Mohammed, (7) Abdullah Usman, s/o Usman, (8) Mossa, s/o Ibrahim, and (9) Rafi s/o Abdullah, presently undergoing detention as remanded prisoners in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the detenus' and to set them at liberty, an important question of law as to the interpretation of Section 167(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences that flow from contravention of or non-compliance with, the provisions of the said section arises for consideration.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the batch of writ petitions lie in a narrow compass and may briefly be stat...
K. Pentamma Alias K. Prameela and anr. Vs. the Addl. Commissioner, Mun ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT160
ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners question the insistence by the 2nd respondent for submission of the consent of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad, the 4th respondent herein, for consideration of their application for construction of shops and showrooms, etc., and seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider and grant sanction of the construction plan with necessary modification without insisting on the consent of the 4th respondent.2. The petitioners state that they are the owners of premises bearing door No. 4-2-25 to 28 and 32, R.P. Road in Secunderabad. The said property originally belonged to one K. Pentaiah and it devolved on them as per the will executed by him. The site is covered by lease deed No 3027 dated 20-8-1969 in favour of the said K. Pentaiah. After his demise, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent herein claiming rights under the said lease by way of devolution under the will dated 10-11-1975 executed by the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »