Andhra Pradesh Court February 1993 Judgments

Doddi Nagulu Vs. Doddi Mutyalamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(1994)DMC236

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order granting maintenance by the Court of Sessions, reversing the order of rejection of maintenance by the Court of Magistrate. Respondents 1 and 2 have lodged a maintenance case claiming maintenance against the petitioner herein stating that the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and that the 1st respondent begot the 2nd respondent through him. That was disputed by the petitioner and the Court of Magistrate found favour with the said plea taken by the petitioner and held that the 1st respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent was not born out of their wedlock. This was reversed by the Court of Sessions holding that, even though there was a customary marriage inter se the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the same may not be valid and in that sense held that the 2nd respondent is an illegitimate child of the petitioner and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per m...

A. Amarendernath Vs. the Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Saraswathi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT425

Motilal B. Naik, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7-5-1988 passed by the 1st respondent, and consequently a direction for his reinstatement into service in the respondent-bank.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as the Branch Manager of Saraswathi Grameena Bank at Bela village of Adilabad district. The bank being a Grameena Bank, its main objective is to cater to the needs of the rural masses by way of advancing loans to agriculturists, etc. It is stated that on some false complaints, the petitioner was kept under suspension with effect from 1-10-1985 and was served with a charge-memo dated 7-11-1986 and was asked to submit his explanation within ten days. It is also stated that the charges are on five main counts and each charge contained different allegations. The petitioner is said to have submitted explanation on 21-11-1986 dealing with all the aspects. On the basis of the explanation, an enquiry was contemplated and the findings were present...

M. Varadarajulu Chetti Vs. C. Selvaraj

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT576

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. The questions raised in the civil revision petition, though look very peculiar, in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the order impugned in the civil revision petition has to be set aside and remand the matter back to the Rent Controller, that is, the original authority for deciding R.C.C.No. 16/87 from the stage of the respondent adducing evidence.2. It is contended by Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said R.C.C.16/87 was filed by the landlord-petitioner herein on two counts, viz., wilful default and acts of waste. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner-landlord was adduced and the respondent-tenant for reasons unknown failed to adduce evidence and therefore on 7-9-89 he was set ex parte. Consequently, decree was passed in favour of the landlord-petitioner directing eviction of the respondent-tenant. As against setting ex parte on 7-9-89, GM.A. No. 9/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant before the lower...

Ponnolu Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs. Vaka Rachaiah (Died) by L.R. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT378

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the decree and judgment made in A.S. No. 1085 of 1983, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah.2. The appellant in L.P.A.No. 133 of 1991 is the plaintiff, while the legal representative of the first defendant is the appellant in L.P. A.No. 39 of 1992. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 133 of 1991 filed O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share together with mesne profits. The defendant Nos.l & 2 therein, are the alienee and his father respectively. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of his joint family of which himself, his father - D-2 and...

N. Ramakrishna Reddy and anr. Vs. N. Dwaraka Singh and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)431; 1993CriLJ2279

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in C.C. 202 of 1992 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad requesting that the order of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 26-6-1992 taking cognizance of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent (complainant) in C.C. No. 202 of 1992, on his file may be quashed. 2. A private complaint has been filed by the 1st respondent herein (complainant) against the petitioners (accused 1 and 2) for offences under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code with the following allegations :- The complainant and M. Gopal Singh, M. Dilip Singh, M. Vinod Singh, and M. Vikram Singh (LWs 1 to 4) are the absolute owners of land in Survey Nos. 169, 170, 172, 173, 190 and 191 of Gaganmahal village, Hyderabad. All of them have entered into an agreement of sale with the Legislator's Co-operative Housing Society Limited represented by the then President on 14-12-1980...

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Shreeramnagar and Etc. Vs. A.P. State E ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP183

ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The writ appeals arise out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant-Industrial concerns against the action of the A.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in not treating them as H.T. Category-1 units. The writ petition, W.P. 18678 of 1987, assails a similar action questioned in the above dismissed writ petitions. All these matters, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the year 1975 the Board having evolved certain guidelines classified the Industrial concerns herein as 'Power Intensive Industries' and fixed the tariff by virtue of the power vested in it under S. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The earliest of the proceedings, B.P. Ms. No. 689 dated 17-9-1975, fixed the tariff for these Industrial concerns at 'eleven' paise per unit as against 'twenty-three' paise for H.T. Category-1 consumers. As a matter of fact, the Industrial concerns have opted t...

Smt. D. Neelima Vs. the Dean of P.G. Studies, A.P. Agricultural Univer ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP229; 1993(1)ALT458

ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. These two appeals give rise to a similar point and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ petitioner is the appellant in W. A. 1161 of 1992. She was born in a Reddy caste family and married an ERUKALA boy, Dr. Swamy. ERUKALA tribe is one of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The marriage took place on 3-5-1990 at Luthern Church in Hyderabad and since then she is leading family life with him and his parents at Guntur. After the marriage, she sought for admission into M.Sc. (Home Science) course in the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, under reserved quota for Scheduled Tribes. Inasmuch as the University Authorities were not considering her as one, entitled to the reservation available to Scheduled Tribes, she moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage by the learned single Judge holding that the marriage is ANULOMA for the gir...

M. Kuppuswamy Naidu Vs. His Holiness Sri Srimad Abhinava Ramanuja Brah ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT343

ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. The fourth respondent in O.S.No. 318 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Subordinate judge's Court, Tirupati is the petitioner in this revision. He is questioning the order made in LA.No. 10l/92 in O.S.No. 318/89, dt.3-12-1992, wherein, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded a compromise between the plaintiff- D.3 and the proposed plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of a part of subject-matter of the suit. The other defendants, admittedly, are not parties to the said compromise and the suit is still pending in all other respects.2. It is necessary to narrate a few relevant facts, The first respondent who is the plaintiff - His Holiness Sri Srimad Abhindva Ramanuja Brahma Thanthra Swathanthra Parakala Swamiji Mathadhipathi of Parakala Mutt, represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder - N. Nar.asimha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'Parakala Mutt') filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.l to 4 who are the respondent No...

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. the Addl. Labour Court and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT143

Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is as to whether the petitioner employer is right in its submission that the orders passed by the Labour Court in favour of workmen on the applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are devoid of jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner urges two points. Firstly, the respondent-workmen were contract conductors employed on daily wages and were not regular employees of the Corporation. He submits that according to Clause 2 of the Conduct Regulations, 1963, the daily-rated workmen are not employees of the Corporation. His next submission is that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) to pass orders is confined to the determination of claims of persons who are admittedly workmen who have to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and that the power does not extend to the determinati...

Aiswarya Construction Vs. Tumati Padma Vijaya Kumari

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Petition under Section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed herein against the order dated 6.1.93 in I.A.252/92 in C.D. 349/92 on the file of the District Forum, Krishna district at Machilipatnam. 2. This case coming on for hearing upon perusing the memorandum of grounds file herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. 3. The Court made the following Order: - According to the terms of the contract, the flat has to be delivered possession within a period of one year from the date of the agreement. Evidently, the flat is not completed within the time. The allottee of the flat paid all other installments, except the last installment of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 5,000.00 at the time of the delivery of the possession. Therefore, he is prepared to pay that amount and sought a direction for delivery of possession. Pending the consumer...