Andhra Pradesh Court February 1994 Judgments

M. Venkatappa Reddy Vs. Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rep. b ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT657

ORDERT.N.C. Ranga Rajan, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the Memo No. 21997/SER.V(A-2)/90, dated 1-3-1993 by which the respondent was denied the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner in the High Court prior to joining respondent's service while computing the pension admissible to him.2. The petitioner relies on the proceedings No.l552/SC/90, dt.10-9-90 issued by the Registrar of the University stating that in the case of persons joining the University from other institutions, past service in the other institutions will be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits provided the pro-rata pensionary benefits are paid either by the previous employer or the individual employee concerned. The University has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the High Court had declined to pay the pro- rata pensionary benefits on the ground that the petitioner has resigned the High Court Services before joining the University. It is now stated by the learned Counsel ...

Sri S. Krishna Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP292

ORDER1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the questions raised therein are one and the same.2. C.R.P. No. 2010 of 1993 arises out of the judgment dated 31-3-1993 passed in O.P. No. 27 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar and C.R.P. No. 9 of 1994 arises out of the judgment dated 18-11-1993 passed in O.P. No. 69 of 1993 on the file of the same Court.3. Petitioner is a contractor. He was entrusted with the work relating to 'Each work excavacation and forming embankment of DBM-31 from K.M. 5.00 to K.M. 7.00 of Kakatiya canal of Sri Ramsagar Project' vide agreement No. 1 /1982-93, dated 24-4-1982 by the Government. According to one of the clauses in the agreement, the petitioner has to complete the work within twelve months from the date of handing over the site, which was handed over on 5-3-1982. It is also one of the clauses that if any dispute arises between the parties in respect of execution of work, the same may be referred to ar...

S. Krishna Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR154(AP)

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the questions raised therein are one and the same. 2. C.R.P. No. 2010 OF 1993 arises out of the judgment dated 31.3.93 passed in O.P. No. 27 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar and C.R.P. No. 9 of 1994 arises out of the judgment dated 18.11.1993 passed in O.P. No. 69 of 1993 on the file of the same court. 3. Petitioner is a contractor. He was entrusted with the work relating to 'Each work excavation and forming embankment of DBM-31 from K.M. 5.00 to K.M. 7.00 of Kakatiya canal of Sri Ramsagar Project' vide agreement No. 1/1982-93, dated 24.4.1982 by the Government. According to one of the clauses in the agreement, the petitioner has to complete the work within twelve months from the date of handing over the site, which was handed over on 5.3.1982. It is also one of the clauses that if any dispute arises between the parties in respect of execution of work, the same may ...

Dhanapala Ravindra Setty Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)120; 1994CriLJ3486

K.N. Rao, J.1. Commonalty of questions of law and similarity of facts incline us to dispose of these five writ petitions by this common judgment. 2. Impugned in each of these five writ petitions is the order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Cuddapah under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers Dacoits Drug Offender Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No. 1 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In each of these five cases the Collector & District Magistrate was satisfied that each of the Detenus was indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore detention until further orders was necessary. Each of the detenus was supplied with a copy of the grounds of detention : 3. On 27-12-1993, the Advisory Board, constituted under the Act, expressed its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned....

Vaditho Anantharao Naik Vs. Bhoomisetty Rajaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT486

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In this CRP., the order passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda dated 29-7-1993 in CFR No. 1536/93 in an un-numbered suit filed by the petitioner herein is questioned.2. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from intefering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. According to plaint averments, the defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule land on 30-7-92 and put the plaintiff in possession on the same date after receiving the entire balance of sale consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner has been raising crops and remained in effective possession of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff further alleged that the defendant and his men were trying to interfere with his possession. Hence the suit was filed.3. It is stated in the plaint that the suit is passed on possessory title of the plaintiff and the plaintiff reserves his rig...

Gouru Lingaiah Vs. N. Chandrashekar

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant whose complaint was dismissed in CD. No. 142 of 1991 preferred this appeal. His case was that he contributed for 3 Memberships in Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme and paid towards those 3 Memberships a sum of Rs. 10,840/-. But the opposite party in spite of his claim did not refund the amount. The opposite party took a plea that he is not the person, that is running Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme but it was run by Tadakamalla Sharavan Kumar, a cousin of the opposite party. It is also their case that the complainant borrowed Rs. 18,000/- from the opposite party, that is, Rs. 6000/- each membership and paid only Rs. 10,840/- and he has to pay the balance of the amount. The complainant was examined as PW1, no documents were marked on behalf of him. On a consideration of the evidence the District Forum held that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the opposite party is a proprietor or partner of A...

Parmjit Singh Vs. Mrs. M. Sitha Devi

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainants case is that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 4.9.1987 and also another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 2.1.1988. After maturity of the deposits the Opposite Party issued 3 post-dated cheques for Rs. 17,171/-. But these cheques bounced back, therefore, the complaint was filed for the recovery of the entire amount due under the said deposits on the date of maturity with subsequent interest. The Opposite Party took the plea that this is a money transaction and the relationship is that of the creditor and debtor. Relying on the documents filed by the complainant the District Forum held that the complainant deposited the amount and the Opposite Party is liable to pay and so the complainant is a consumer and comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. It, therefore, directed the payment of Rs. 17,171/-with interest thereon from 30.6.89 and Rs. 21,870/- with interest thereon from 31.7.89 and costs of Rs. 1000/- In this app...

Ramakrishna Agencies Vs. B. Nageswara Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant purchased Videocon Video Cassette Player from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. It is the case of the complainant that immediately thereafter display of the picture was in a zig-zag condition. According to him, he went to the shop on 14.5.1992 and even then the display of the picture was still in a zig-zag condition. Under instructions of the shop man he went to Tirupathi for rectification of the defect. According to him, he went 12 times to the shop of the opposite party as well as to other places as directed by him, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1000/-. He therefore prayed for replacement of the set or otherwise to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in addition to costs incurred by him of Rs. 1000/- and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The District Forum observed that even during the pendency of the case, the opposite party did not agree to undertake repair to the set. It therefore directed the opposite party to replace the...

Ch. Srinivas Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Tran ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT542

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These four writ petitions raise a common point with regard to right of collection of 9% towards stamp duty and registration charges by the respondents from the respective petitioners for the grant of right to collect the toll fee on the bridges viz., Kanakadurgamma Varadhi, Keesara bridge on National High-way No. 9 and Vadapally bridge in Nalgonda District.2. In the counter filed by the respondents, the right to collect the said amount has been asserted. The said assertion is not traced to any of the provisions of the Stamp Act or the Registration Act. I have scanned through all the provisions of the Stamp Act as also the Registration Act, but nowhere I could find any provision authorising the respondents to collect stamp duty and registration charges at 9%.3. Mr. Ghulam Dastagir, the learned Government Pleader also could not point out to me the legal provisions empowering the respondents to collect the said amount either in the shape of cash or bank guara...

Azam Jahi Mills Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Warangal and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT43

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. The case came up at the stage of vacating the interim order already granted. The writ petition is of the year 1992. Both the learned counsel urged the Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits. 2. I heard either Counsel. The important point which arises for consideration is as to whether the 2nd respondent is entitled for the terminal benefits under the special voluntary retirement scheme which was invoked at the time when he sought for voluntary retirement or a latter scheme by which time his application for voluntary retirement was not considered. Admittedly, the first scheme of voluntary retirement came into force from 26-2-1988. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed an application seeking the benefits under the said scheme on 24-3-1988. This was kept pending till 8-8-1988. Meanwhile, another special voluntary retirement scheme was introduced with effect from 25-7-1988. The dispute is as to whether the 2nd respondent, who is the ex-workman of the...