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.
Chandrakanth H. Shah Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3202
S.C. Pratap, C.J.1. While there can be no quarrel that this Court has jurisdiction to make an order forbearing the respondents from issuing an order of detention against the petitioner, this is not a case whether this Court would be justified in doing so. The Supreme Court ruling in Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Alka Sunhash Gadia 1990 (2) Scale 1352 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner itself indicates that interference by the Courts at the pre-execution stage is necessarily very limited in scope and number. It has been further held that such power could be exercised where the Court is prima facie satisfied. (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed; or (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person; or (iii) that it is based for a wrong purpose; (iv) that it is based on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds; or (v) that the authority which passed it had no auth...
Sri Balaji Kala Mandir, a theatre Vs. Entertainment Tax Officer and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT601
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, as amended later from time to time. Earlier, entertainment tax was payable on the basis of actual admissions made into the theatre for entertaining. But the amendment brought forth during the year 1984 introduced for the first time the slab system under Section 4(1) of the Act specifying the amount of tax having regard to the several factors as ordinary, air-cooled, air-conditioned as also depending on the location of the theatres within the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal corporation, a selection grade municipality, a first grade municipality, a second grade municipality, a third grade municipality and lastly a gram panchayat. Under Section 5(1) of the Act, an option is given to the exhibitor to enter into an agreement to pay the compounded tax. While the tax under Section 4(1) is payable on the theatre being run, the tax under Section 5(1) is payable...
Thirumalareddy Thamasamma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT53; 1992CriLJ3016
ORDER1. Petitioner is the widow of late Sri Thirumalareddy Showrireddy, who was murdered at 7.00 p.m. on 5-10-1987. Police had registered crime No. 86/87 of Gurajala Police Station against the 3rd respondent and 15 others under sections 302 read with S. 34, IPC, as also under sections 324 and 326, IPC. The crime was tried as S.C. No. 351/88 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. It was subsequently transferred to the Court of Session, Ongole, where it was re-numbered as S.C. No. 11/91. The Sessions Judge, Ongole in his judgment dt. 4-10-1991 found the 3rd respondent and three others guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC. He sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and convicted two other accused under sections 324 and 326. The Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused. 3rd respondent and other accused who were convicted filed Criminal Appeal No. 1035/91 against the conviction and sentence. That appeal is pending. They also filed Criminal M.P. No. 2611...
B. Mallaiah and ors. Vs. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT590; (1993)ILLJ287AP
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are working as Senior Purchase Officers in the 1st respondent's office at Hyderabad. The petitioners are Non-Engineering Graduates. They were originally appointed in the Purchase Department and promoted from time to time. The next promotion post to the petitioners is the Purchase Manager. The 1st respondent-Corporation has got a promotional policy. In case of Engineering Graduates the requirement to get promotion is five years' service as Senior Purchase Officer, whereas for the non-engineering graduate Senior Purchase Officers the requirement is five years' service plus Post Graduation Degree. Apart from the petitioners, who are non-engineering graduates, there are also Engineering Graduates, working in the Purchase Department. They were recruited directly to the post of the Purchase Officer (Trainees). The functions performed in the Purchaser Department by the Petitioners as well as the Engineering Graduates are one and the ...
K. Dayanand Vs. the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ154AP
Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. This Writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 16, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 3742 of 1985. 2. The appellant is a conductor working in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). He was appointed in 1975. On July 25, 1980, while he was conducting the bus AAZ 2202 from Kammam to Nelakondapalli, a surprise check was carried out and it was found that it was found that the appellant herein had not issued tickets between stages 7 and 8 to 19 passengers, who were travailing ticketless in the bus. Charges were framed and a disciplinary enquiry was held with respect to the irregularities mentioned above. In the enquiry, charges were held proved and a second show cause notice was issued on December 19, 1980 proposing removal from service. The appellant offered his explanation; which was considered to be inadequate and an order of removal was passed on January 12, 1981. The appellant filed an appeal to the Division Mana...
P.S. Seetha Lakshmi Vs. the Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT596; (1993)ILLJ270AP
ORDER1. Petitioner is a widow of late Sri. R. Swaminadhan, who was a Crane Driver Grade-11 in the C.M.E. department, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust. He died on April 4, 1983 after completing 20 years of service. The family consists of the petitioner, 2 minor daughters and one minor son. Petitioner submits that her husband left no as sets, but bad liabilities which are to be met. She had therefore sought employment under the respondent in terms of instructions issued in Memo. No. 14/10/71 Estt. Dated January 1972 and in O.M. No. 14014/6/86 Estt. dated June 30, 1987. Government of India granted exemption from application of ban which was imposed in filling up posts on compassionate considerations in O.M. No. 10014/1/84 Estt. (d), Ministry of Home Affairs on March 12, 1984. Petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. and requested the 2nd respondent to provide suitable job on compassionate relaxation of the recruitment rules. The 2nd respondent recommended her application for appointment on February 22, 19...
K. Dayanand Vs. the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT164; (1993)IILLJ93AP; (1994)IILLJ154AP
Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-12-1986 in Writ Petition No. 3742 of 1985.2. The appellant is a conductor working in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). He was appointed in 1975. On 25-7-1980, while he was conducting the bus AAZ 2202 from Khammam to Nelakondapalli, a surprise check was carried out and It was found that the appellant herein had not issued tickets between stages 7 and 8 to 19 passengers, who were travelling ticketless in the bus. Charges were framed and a disciplinary enquiry was held with respect to the irregularities mentioned above. In the enquiry, charges were held proved and a second show cause notice was issued on 19-12-1980 proposing removal from service. The appellant offered his explanation, which was considered to be inadequate and an order of removal was passed on 12-1-1981. The appellant filed an appeal to the Divisional Manager, who is the appellate authority. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›