Andhra Pradesh Court February 1994 Judgments

The General Manager, Azam Jahi Mills Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labou ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT43a

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 ...

D. Rajamma (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. B. Tirupathamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT618

ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The first petitioner, decree-holder in O.S. No. 16 of 1974 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, filed this Civil Revision Petition. She died during the pendency of the CRP and petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as her legal representatives. She filed the said suit against the first respondent alleging that the suit property was let out to her on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-; she fell in arrears in payment of rent; that she inducted respondents 2 and 3 into possession of the suit property; denied her title and relationship of land-lady and tenant and claimed title to the suit property by adverse possession. The suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit property by demolition of the structure raised by the first respondent and for recovery of mesne profits. After contest the suit was decreed by the trial Court on 8-2-1980. The first respondent carried the m...

Md. JaheeruddIn Vs. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP259

ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri 1. These three writ appeals and the writ petition out of which the appeals arose raise the same question of law, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.2. The petitioner claims to be a trader within the meaning of cl. (xvi) of S. 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') within the notified market area of the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad-respondent No. 15. He challenges the re-constitution of the Market Committee under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5 of the said Act. He says that having fixed the total number for the Hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee as 18, in G.O.Ms. No. 465 dated 26-3-1992, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, reconstituted the committee in violation of the provisions of S. 5(1) of the Act; in the category of 'gr...

M.V. Krishna Kumar and anr. Vs. V.R. Law College, Rep. by Its Secretar ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT372

ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Act XIII of 1985 as illegal and inapplicable to the first respondent-College and directing the first respondent to regularise the appointments of the petitioners as full time lecturers giving them University Grants Commission's (in short 'UGC') scale of pay with effect from their first appointment with all back-wages and other consequential benefits like seniority, promotion etc.2. The first petitioner passed M.L. (Contracts including Mercantile law) and the second petitioner passed M.A., L.L.M., (Labour Laws). Both of them were appointed as part-time lecturers in the first respondent-college on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month. The first and second petitioners have been working from 19-10-1987 and 26-9-1988 respectively. They contended that as held by the Supreme Court and the High Court ad hoc appointments on temporary basis is bad in law and, therefore, they are e...

Konijeti Varalakshmamma and ors. Vs. Menta Masthan Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT320

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. In these Civil Revision Petitions common question of Law is agitated and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioners are referred to as 'tenants' and the respondents as 'landlords'. The issues raised in these petitions are:(1) Whether the rent control proceedings are maintainable or not before the Rent Controller; and(2) Whether there is any default committed by the tenants in payment of rents, as alleged by the landlords.In order to examine the pros and cons of the above issues, it is necessary to trace out few facts of the case as follows:-The residential building, subject-matter of the rent control proceedings, originally belonged to one Potti Venkateswara Rao. The said Venkateswara Rao was declared as insolvent by the Sub-Court, Vijayawada, in I.P. No. 9 of 1967. The said property was sold to the landlords in a public auction held on 15-3-1978. On 16-3-1978 the Official Receiver who conducted the auction...

O. Sheela Harry and ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT524

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14-2-1990 passed by the District Revenue Officer in his proceedings No. B2/8102/89. The District Revenue Officer is the 1st respondent while the 2nd respondent is the person at whose instance the said impugned order has been passed. The 2nd respondent had filed a petition for correction of revenue records before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent did not conduct any enquiry on his own, but called for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and accepted the case of the 2nd respondent and directed the correction of the revenue records. The writ petitioner states that the same was ex parte without notice to him and without conducting any enquiry and contending so, he filed a petition to set aside the order dated 14-6-1988. But the same was rejected by order dated 31-8-1989. The petitioner then filed a review petition before the 1st respondent pleading several grounds. The copy of the review peti...

B. Narayana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar Depot and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT297

Y. Bhasker Rao. J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, holding that the charge that the appellant has committed dereliction of duty in not collecting fare from the passengers has been established and modifying the award of the Labour Court by directing reinstatement of appellant with continuity of service and with only 50% backwages. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-Collector was conducting the bus APZ 4253 on 28-8-1970 on the route 'Karimnagar to Manthani' a check was conducted by M. W. 1 at stage No. 14 and it was found that three passengers were travelling in the bus without tickets. Thereupon charges were framed and enquiry was held. He was removed from service as the charges are held proved. The appellant then sought reference to the Labour Court and the Labour Court, on reference having considered the rival contentions and having perused the enquire material found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and theref...

K.P. Leela, Advocate Vs. Aneja Financial Consultancy Services

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The case of the complainant as seen from the complaint is as follows : The complainant obtained the Portfolio management services for investment in shares from the opposite party i.e. Aneja Financial Consultancy Services. The opposite party promised to sell and purchase shares on her behalf by investing the amount received from the complainant and also promised to advance loan in equal amount paid. The complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards investment. The opposite party promised that he will make windfall profits and investor can become a millionaire within 3 to 6 months and promised to advance a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite party neither invested the amount paid by the complainant nor advanced any loan and the complainant sustained loss of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) due to negligence of the opposite party. Complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with interest from the date of award till realisation, and costs. 2. The version o...

Pinjari HussaIn Sab Vs. District Collector, Anantapur and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT262; 1994(1)ALT(Cri)332

M.N. Rao, J.1. These two habeas corpus writ petitions are listed before us pursuant to an order of reference dated 19-1-1994 made by a Division Bench of this court comprising two of us - M. N. Rao and P. Ramakrishna Raju, JJ. These two writ petitions, in the first instance, came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 19-1-1994. In W.P. No. 18349 of 1993, one of the contentions urged by Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the impugned order of detention was liable to be struck down on the ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The detention order specifically mentioned that it was passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2)(a) r/w Section 3(1)(a) and (b)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 7 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from acting further in a manner pr...

Smt. Sukhinder Anand Vs. Khaza Vazir Ali (Minor) and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994ACJ786; AIR1994AP343; 1994(2)ALT629

1. The first petitioner in O.P.No. 613 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Medak at Sangareddy is the appellant herein. She is the wife of late Jagjit Singh Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who died in a motor accident that took place on 21-12-1982 around 8.30 a.m. near Dudheda Village. She filed O.P. No. 613 of 1984 along with her daughter and son, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the petition.2. The facts of the case are that on the fateful day, the deceased was travelling in a car bearing number A AX 4001 from Hyderabad to Ramagundam. When it reached Dudheda village, a lorry bearing number ADT 5163, coming in the opposite directiondashed against the car, resulting in instantaneous death of the driver of the car and grievous injuries to the deceased. The deceased, who became unconscious, was shifted to Jasl...