Andhra Pradesh Court April 1992 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.
Smt. Tummala Lakshmi Eswaramma Vs. Junior Telecom Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT46
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the demand notice dt. 7-9-1988 issued by the respondents demanding Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a holder of telephone No.GVA-611. She was paying the bills regularly. She has not received any bill exceeding Rs. 1,500/-. Originally, her husband was the telephone holder and after that she is holding the telephone. She is a widow as her husband died in the year 1986 and after the death of her husband, the telephone is not used very much at all. While so, the impugned notice is issued without any notice to the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondents contended that under Rule 445 of the Rules for Indian Telephones, the respondents have got power to collect security charges whenever such an occasion arises. Accordingly, as the petitioner was making number of calls, demand notice demanding Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit was issued. There is nothing w...
B. Venkata Rao Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT467
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 23-12-1991 passed in R.P. No. 11/91/H-15, by the 1st respondent reversing the order of the 2nd respondent herein.2. The matter concerns filling up the vacancy of dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 21 of Anakapally Mandal of Visakhapatnam District for which the petitioner and the 5th respondent were the contenders. The authority, before whom the applications were to be filed, is the 3rd respondent who issued the notification, calling for applications on 2-8-1990 and the applications were to be filed by 17-8-1990. It is not disputed that as on 17-8-1990, the 5th respondent was holding a licence as a hawker to supply kerosene. But, it is submitted by Mr. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent herein that such a hawker's licence was surrendered by the 5th respondent on 3-11-1990 and that the same was accepted on 30-11-1990 and the interview was conducted on 12-11-1990. He was no more a ...
theatre, Sangamesh Vs. the Entertainment Tax Deputy Commissioner, Kurn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP137; 1993(1)ALT188
ORDERSyed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J.1. This special appeal under Section 9E of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act (for short 'the Act') is referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court observing that there appears to be a direct conflict between the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 8-2-1988 in Triveni Theatre, Anantapur v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Special Appeals Nos. 43 to 46 of 1984 and a judgment of another Division Bench in Sri Rama Theatre v. Dy. C.T.O., Kakinada, 1982 (2) APLJ (HC) 209.2. We shall presently refer to the controversy which led to the reference to the Full Bench. But before we do so, we would give the relevant facts of this case to appreciate the controversy.3. The appellant is a proprietary concern carrying on the business of exhibiting films. The rates of admission to the appellant-theatre are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Cinemas Rules') and the Andhra Pradesh Entertai...
Abdul Raheem by G.P.A., Mohd. Phiroze Ali Vs. Srinivasa Dyeing Works, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT232
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. The sole tenant is the petitioner herein. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1972 on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller holding that the ground of bona fide personal requirement was not established and that there is no wilful default in payment of rent, dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada who is the appellate authority held that the firm of which the minor is a partner, requires the premises bona fide for personal occupation and that there is also wilful default in payment of rent. He accordingly allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.2. When the civil revision petition came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, K. Jayachandra Reddy, (as he then was) agreed with the appellate court holding that the premises is bona fide required for the occupation of the first landlord-firm (for short 'the firm'). Though ...
C. Panduranga Murthy and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT169
ORDER1. The relief sought in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the effect that the nominations of new Chairman made on 25th March, 1992 for the Zilla Grandhalaya Samastha of Anantapur and Krishna Dist. in the place of the present petitioners be declared to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Public Libraries Act, 1960.2. Under Section 10 of the said Act, the State Government is competent to nominate members for the Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas for twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and for the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha for each district. Out of the members of the Zilla Grandhalaya Samastha so nominated, one non-official member is nominated as the Chairman thereof. The original term of office of the Chairman and Members was five years from the date of their nomination or election, as the case may be. Subsequently, the said tenure was, by Amendment Act 13 of 1987, reduced to three years. The petitioners were nominated on 2nd Augus...
S. Prasada Raju and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1992AP351; 1992(2)ALT253
ORDER1. These miscellaneous applications 'are' filed seeking interim relief of continuing the petitioners who are the elected representatives of the local authorities, be it, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, Mandal Praja Parishads or Zilla Praja Parishads, pending election of new representatives.2. The writ petitions came to be filed on the verge of the expiry of the term of the period for which the elections were held and in the wake of the Government's proposal to man the above said local authorities in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh through governmental officers by appointing them as Special Officers or Persons-in-charge, by whatever name called. In the main writ petitions, the prayer is to hold elections and pending the same, to continue the petitioners in offices for which they were elected in a democratic 'manner'. Such a provision is contained in the relevant statutes under which the petitioners were elected: The said provisions were enabling provisions empowering the...
Laxama Reddy and ors. Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT169
Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.1. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated July 9,1991 of the Chairman, L.R.A.T. Sangareddy, rejecting the revision petitioners claim to correct the alleged clerical mistakes and determine the Standard Holding of each of the declarants in the interest of equity.2. This matter originally came upto before A. Lakshmana Rao, J., while he was sitting single. Before the learned single Judge the decisions reported in-A. Reddy Yerrayyamma v. Authorised Officer, 1976 (2) A.P.L.J. P.405, K. Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (2) A.P.L.J. P. 347 and Chenchi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1980 (1) A.P.L.J. P.257 were cited to impress upon the learned Judge that the point involved is nothing but a pure and simple clerical mistake and the same has to be corrected as prayed for. The learned Judge having heard the matter observed as follows:'In the instant case, after the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal had become final, the declarants filed a p...
V. Ramakrishna Vs. Smt. N. Sarojini and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP147; 1992(2)ALT35
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9951/90 wherein the writ appellant who was the 4th respondent in the writ petition was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- per month with effect from 1-8-1990, arrears payable by the end of the year1991, and the current amounts by 15th day of succeeding month. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking renewal of licence enabling her to continue to run the stall on railway platform No. 5 at Vijayawada Railway Station. We shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in this writ appeal.2. One Mr. V. Srinivas Rao was running a stall at Platform No. 5 of Vijayawada Railway Station since 1965 till his death on 14-3-1981. His wife pre-deceased him. He left behind him, 5 daughters and a son and of the said children, three daughters were majors and two daughters, namely, Vijayalakshmi and Varalakshmi and the last one, a son by...
People's Shoe Co. rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri P. Uma Sambasiva Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT77
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 23-8-1991 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in I.A. No. 3449 of 1991 in O.S. No. 18 of 1982 refusing to recast the issue placing onus of proof on the plaintiff 'relating to retirement' from the partnership with effect from 1-12-1978 pursuant to her letter dated 27-11-1978.2. The plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming the relief of dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts on the premise that the partnership was subsisting, while the defendants raised a contention that the suit was not tenable as the plaintiff was no more a partner with effect from 1-12-1978 due to her retirement.3. The grant of relief is based on the main issue i.e. the continuance of the plaintiff as a partner in the firm concerned. If she was continuing as a partner as on the date of presentation of the plaint, she would be eligible for the relief 'as sought for'. If she had retired ...
S. Mallesam Vs. Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT577
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on 13.3.1992 it is stated by Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy, the papers were represented before the registry of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad but the said registry by an order dated 8.4.92 again returned the papers on the grounds mentioned infra:'(a) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 13 of RTC Act, 1981.(b) The accident does not come under Section 82-A of the old Railway Act, 1870 (under Section 124 of the new Railway Act, 1989).(c) The Applicant is not a bonafide passenger.'It is not for the registry to adjudicate with regard to the jurisdictional aspects and also on merits that the applicant is not a bona fide passenger. These aspects require a judicial adjudication and the registry is not empowered to deal with the said aspects. As such, I direct the 1st respondent to register the claim made by the petitioner herein if the papers are again represented by 30-4-1992. After...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »