Andhra Pradesh Court March 1993 Judgments

Superintendent of Police and ors. Vs. Dwarapudi Rami Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994ACJ752

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, who are respondents in M.A.T.O.P. No. 482 of 1988, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, challenging the order dated 30.3.1990, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khammam, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,30,856/- in favour of the respondent herein (claim petitioner) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and also awarding proportionate costs of Rs. 14,430.2. Before entering into a debate on the controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case to highlight the issue on hand. On 30.3.1988 the claim petitioner, in the course of his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles, had gone to Chintoor and was standing on the extreme left side of the road at the bus stop at ...

Thotakura Subba Rao and Another Vs. V. Sudhakar

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainants before the District Forum, Ongole are the appellants in this appeal. According to the complainants they had made three fixed deposits with the opposite party. As the amounts were not paid after maturity, they filed the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay full amount due under the three F.D. receipts with interest at 18% p.a. from 1-12-1983 till the date of payment. In page 3 of the complaint even before the complaint was numbered, the District Forum passed the docket order dated 3-11-1990 as 'rejected'. Questioning the aforesaid order this appeal is filed by the complainants. 2. It is submitted by Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, the learned Counsel for the appellants, that the District Forum cannot reject the complaint without going into the merits of the case. But we find from para 3 of the complaint itself that the opposite party filed a suit against the complainants and two others in Madras on the file of the City Civil Court. The ...

Montey Appalaraju and Another Vs. Kotteti Talupulamma Alias Tallamma a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1993AP331; 1993(3)ALT21

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed, at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, against the order dated 24th August, 1989 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram in O.S. 6 of 1988 on his file, holding that the document dated 16-8-35 sought to be marked by the petitioners-plaintiffs during the chief-examination of P.W. 1 (Ist plaintiff) is inadmissible in evidence.2. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the document in question is a private award passed by the arbitrators creating and conferring rights on the parties with regard to the immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- and as such it is compulsorily registerable and as the document is not registered and is also insufficiently stamped, it is hot admissible in evidence.3. The document in question is an unregistered one executed on a one rupee worth-non-judicial stamp and it is dated 16-3-1935. The case of the petitioners-plaintiffs is that it is only a family arrangement and so it is not compulsorily register...

Matchumari China Venkatareddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994CriLJ257

ORDER1. These two bail petitions have been filed under S. 439, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 81/92 of Darsi Police Station of Prakasam District. They are accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Sections 149 and 435, IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. 2. In the two cases referred to above, which arise out of the same crime, the bail is sought for on the ground that the proviso to S. 167(2) Cr.P.C. is violated. The case of the petitioners is that from the date of their remand, more than 90 days expired and as such, their detention became illegal and as they are ready to furnish sureties, the court of Magistrate was bound to release them on bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contends otherwise. He argues that the charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated time of 90 days and as there was some deficiency, the same was returned by the Court of Magistrate after...

A. Yegneswarudu and ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpo ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT639; (1993)IILLJ263AP

ORDER1. These two writ petitions raise a common point of law i.e. fixation of the seniority of the petitioners, who were promotees to the posts of Assistant Traffic Managers and Assistant Mechanical Engineers vis-a-vis direct recruits. It is their case that the posts of Assistant Traffic Managers and Assistant Mechanical Engineers are Class-I Junior Scale Officers posts and they were promoted and posted to the said posts after subjecting them to regular selection process. They state that for several years to come, there was no direct recruitment to the above posts and as such promotions were effected from the lower feeder posts even in excess of the ratio of 1 : 1 contemplated under the rules titled 'A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966'. It is needless to mention that whenever direct recruitment is not possible within a short period and when administrative exigencies warrant the filling of important posts like the one in the instant case, promotions are effected eith...

Repeti Venkataramana Vs. K. Venkateswara Rao Patnaik

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT393; 1993(2)ALT393; [1994(68)FLR1093]; (1994)ILLJ732AP; (1994)ILLJ732SC

ORDERRadha Krishna Rao, J.1. This revision is directed at the instance of the defendant in the suit against the order dated September 21, 1992 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam allowing I.A. 294/92, in O.S. 332/90. on his file and restricting the attachment to an extent of Rs. 48,000/- out of the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner herein and subject to Section 60 C.P.C.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are briefly as follows:- The defendant borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on May 21, 1987, Rs. 15,000/- on July 22, 1987 and Rs. 8,000/- on August 11, 1987 for his domestic expenses agreeing to repay the said amounts with interest at rate of Rs. 27- per mensem per hundred. The defendant executed promissory notes in his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to pay the amounts. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant f...

Dundoo Arvind Kumar Minor by Father and Guardian Sri Dundoo Ekamber Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT193

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. These two Letters patent Appeals are filed by the plaintiff and the subsequent purchaser respectively, questioning the decree and Judgment in C.C.C.A.3/83, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 791/79 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. As the subject-matter is the same and the parties are also common in both the L.P. As. they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the main L.P.A. 216/86.3. The first respondent entered into an oral agreement on 3-2-1978 with the appellant, being minor, represented by his father as guardian, to purchase a ground-floor mulgi bearing Municipal No. 3-3-38 at Subash Road, Secunderabad as described in the plaint schedule for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and has paid an advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- on the same date through a demand draft in favour of the minor- 1st respondent issued by Andhra Bank, Rashtrapati Road, S...

Kohday Engineering Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager, Mr. A.S. Rama Mo ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT432

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Sangareddy in E.P. No. 23 of 1991 in O.S. No. 178 of 1989.2. Plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. He filed the suit O.S.No. 178 of 1989 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from engaging any other agency or itself to complete the work.3. It is necessary to refer to certain facts leading to the filing of the suit before considering the issue that arose for consideration in the revision petition.4. Township Package-II (Konkur) work was entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents, vide work order dated 14-6-1988. The petitioner undertook the work, but, however, since he was expected to get the drawings and samples approved by the respondent No. 3, there was considerable delay in execution of the work. According to the petitioner, the delay was entirely due to the default of the respondents in giving approval. According to the work order, the entire wor...

Vivekananda Printers, Rep. by A. Chenna Kesava, Managing Partner and o ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT546

ORDERRadhakrishna Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners defendants challenging the order dated 22nd November, 1991 passed by the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No. 758 of 1991 in O.S. 472 of 1991 on his file directing the defendant to furnish security by 11-12-1991.2. The respondent-Bank filed a suit O.S.474 of 1991 against the petitioners-defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,66,896-80. Along with the suit, the Bank has filed a petition I.A.No. 758 of 1991 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking attachment before judgment of the stocks and machinery belonging to the first petitioner-firm, which were hypothecated and pledged to the Bank as Security for the amounts advanced to the first petitioner.3. The learned II Additional Judge passed the following Order:-'Heard. The respondent has no objection to furnish security and also submitted that the machinery in question cannot be sold or removed from the premises in view of the High Court order...

Nalgonda Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1993(2)ALT661; 1993(2)ALT661; [1995(70)FLR680]; (1994)IILLJ716AP; (1994)IILLJ716SC

A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The following question came up for consideration in this writ appeal before a Division Bench of this Court:'Whether a Labour Court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act and designated as a second appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act is entitled to condone the delay in filing Second Appeal by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act'.In view of the importance of the question, the learned Judges were of the opinion that the matter required to be considered by a Full Bench and therefore, they passed the order of reference dated June 17, 1991, in the following terms:'It is evident from the foregoing that the decisions of the Supreme Court, nor of this Court, are uniform on this very important question. We are of the opinion that it is necessary that the controversy relating to the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to pro...