Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Management of Oasis School Vs. Labour Court and V. Mukundan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ210AP
ORDER1. These two writ petitions arise out of an award of the Labour Court Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 15/1983. W.P. No. 17008/86 is filed by the Management of Oasis School, whereas Writ Petition No, 10904/88 is filed by the employee. I will refer to the parties as employer and employee respectively. The facts necessary for a proper appreciation of the controversy are the following :- 2. The employer is a Public School, run by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The employee joined service of that school as an Accountant on May 1, 1970. The order of appointment discloses that one K. Venugopal Rao, Office Assistant, was to relieve the petitioner with mutual understanding, as and when occasions arise. The school has been progressing fairly well as a commercial proposition. It stated in rented premises. It could acquire ownership of the premises not much later Order assets are also acquired, out of the profits earned by the employer. The employer terminated the services ...
Andhra Bank, Suryapet Vs. Anantnath Goel
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP245; [1991]70CompCas706(AP)
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J. 1. The plaintiff bank is the appellant in this appeal. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing O.S. No.277 of 1980 in so far as the second defendant is concerned. The suit was decreed by the learned Judge as against the first defendant and it has become final.2. The suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2, who are no other than father and son respectively, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,08,452-74 ps. The basis of the suit, as stated in the plaint, was that the defendants are Abkari contractors, and the first defendant approached the plaintiff bank for certain facilities for the purpose of the Abkari contract. The plaintiff bank sanctioned and paid in the first instance a sum of Rupees 1,65,000/- which is to be paid with interest at 6% per annum over the bank rate of interest with a minunuim of 15% per annum. First defendant deposited title deeds in respect of the immovable propert...
Central Bank of India Vs. Popuri Sarangaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT455; [1992]75CompCas493(AP)
Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J. 1. A.S. No. 1234 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1983, of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, in O.S. No. 282 of 1982 on his file. 2. A.S. No. 1240 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated April 18, 1985, of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gooty, in O.S. No. 90 of 1984 on his file. 3. A.S. No. 1211 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated January 13, 1985, of the learned Subordinate Judge, Addanki, in O.S. No. 67 of 1983 on his file. 4. A.S. No. 1861 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1983, of the learned Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, in O.S. No. 318 of 1982 on his file. 5. A.S. No. 1237 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 19, 1985, of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S. No. 256 of 1984 on his file. 6. A.S. No. 586 of 1986 is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated ...
P.R.K. Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT621
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a revision filed against the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.2. The brief facts involved are: The petitioner was working in the Central Reserve Police Force, Hyderabad. He absented from duty without permission or leave 'from 3-6-88 to 14-10-88, which is an offence under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assistant Commandant-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate tried the offence, found him guilty thereunder, convicted him under Section 10 (q) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days in C.R.P.F. Quarter Guard, Hyderabad. Aggrieved of that, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that the Assistant Commandant, though invested with powers of First Class Magistrate and followed the precedure contemplated by the Code of Criminal Precedure in ...
D. Srinivasa Rao and Others Vs. Govt. of A. P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP112
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the Presidents of the various District Co-operative Central Banks. They all pray for issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that S. 21-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, in so far as it seeks to impose disqualification upon the delegates does not apply to all levels of the Co-operative Credit Societies, including the Co-operative Central Banks at District and State level.2. The above is the original prayer in W.P. 18212/89, which is sought to be amended by W.P.M.P. No. 987/90, filed on 24-1-1990, to the following effect :--'And also to declare S.21-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, as amended, and Rule 24(1)(b) as ultra vires.'3. Not content with the first amendment petition, the petitioners have filed another petition, W.P.M.P. No. 5804/89 on 31-3-1990 seeking a further amendment to the prayer in the writ petition, which is to the following effect:--'To issue a writ or order or direction declaring t...
S. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. P.N. Ravindra Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1619
ORDER1. The twin questions to which this revision gives rise to are : 1. Whether the period prescribed for purposes of filing a complaint under S. 140 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act is repugnant to the one prescribed under S. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to render the former provision void and 2. Whether it is the period of limitation prescribed under S. 140 of the Gram Panchayats Act or under S. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that is applicable for offences under the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act 2. A complaint was filed under the provisions of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act by the respondent against the petitioner herein alleging that the latter has failed to hand over the entire records of the Gram Panchayat, which constitutes an offence under S. 221(a) of the Gram Panchayats Act. The punishment for this offence as prescribed by S. 221(b) of the Act is only an imposition of fine. The submission of the petitioner is that the offence complained of being one punishable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›