Andhra Pradesh Court October 1996 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.
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. Vs. Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ454
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. These two appeals are the product of the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in O.P. No. 15 of 1989 dated 8.6.1990. They having common questions of law and facts are heard together and being disposed of by means of this common judgment as the convenience warrants.2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 755 of 1991 is the claimant whereas the appellants in C.M.A. No. 1281 of 1990 are the respondents in the claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). A claim was laid by the claimant for recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/-by way of compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered by him due to the motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the respondent No. 1, driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. AEZ 1931 which occurred on 5.12.1988 at 9 p.m. near Dongachinthalu at Mincept Engineering Company, Khammam on Khammam- Anantharam road, while the claimant was driving the tractor-cum-trailer No. ATO 1771 and APH 8568. Respondent No...
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. Vs. Al ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: II(1997)ACC366; 1998ACJ506
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. This is the respon- dents' appeal as against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Khammam in O.P. No. 160 of 1989 dated 19.3.1990 questioning the alleged excessive amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam. The claimants have filed the cross-objections, inter alia, contending that the amount of compensation so awarded is inadequate. The two aspects involving the common questions have been considered together for the purpose of convenience.2. A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(for short 'the Act') was laid by the claimants who are the wife, father and the children of the deceased Venkateswar Rao, a practising advocate, to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- due to the death in the motor vehicle accident on 14.1.1989 said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. AEZ 2956 by the driver, respondent No. I. Among the respondents, the respondent No. 1 is the driv...
J. Padma Vs. the Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALD778; 1996(4)ALT749; 1996(2)APLJ85; (1997)IILLJ312AP
ORDER1. The petitioner is a widow of one late J. Kumara Swamy, J. Kumara Swamy was working as a Fitter Grade-I in K.K.I. Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Limited; he met with a road accident on September 20, 1991 and ultimately he died on October 8, 1991. After the death of the employee, the petitioner - wife made an application on October 4, 1992 to the third respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the scheme framed by the management of the Company. The Company did not provide her appointment. On the other hand, she was infortned by the Colliery Manager, KKI Incline, the third Respondent herein, by his letter dated November 27, 1992 that there was no provision for providing employment to female dependent and the petitioner was therefore, eligible to get Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of dependent employment as per the Rules in vogue. Hence this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in refusing to provide suitable employment as ...
Mahendra Kumar Goyal Vs. Ex-officio Joint Secretary and Addl. Commissi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)317; 1997(2)ALT722
ORDER1. Whether Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act') is applicable only to the Courts and as to whether Section 5 of the said Act can beavailed of for appeals filed under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.C., 'Act') as also the Orders made thereunder - are the important points for consideration in this batch of writ petitions.2. In all these cases, the proceedings under Section 6A of E.C. Act were initiated after seizing the essential commodities on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Orders promulgated under Section 3 thereof and consequently violating Section 3 and attracting penal provisions for confiscation of the commodities. Section 6A of E.C. Actcontemplates initiation of proceedings and issuance of show-cause notice from -which stage the proceedings are started and after holding enquiry, orders are passed under Section 6A of Act by the primary authority. In all these cases, t...
Osmania University Rep. by Its Registrar Vs. Syed Asghar HussaIn and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT146
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Heard.2. Instant cases in appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have presented the predicament of the Courts how to balance sympathies with outrageous violation of law. Writ Petitioner - respondents are allegedly admitted to the M.B.A. Courses of studies of the Osmania University by the management of the Deccan School of Management allegedly managed by a trust known as Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust in excess of the sanctioned strength of the students in the institution. When, however, the time to appear in the first semester examination of the academic year 1995-96 reached, the University found them in excess of the number of students sanctioned by the University and the University accordingly declined permission to them for appearing in the first semester examination. When the second semester examination approached, the writ petitioner - respondents moved this Court and it appears, the Court directed the University to permit them to appear in the second sem...
Ch. V. Ranga Rao and ors. Vs. the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)154; 1997(1)ALT171
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions raise a common point as to the liability of either the Transport-Contractor or a carrier for confiscation of the vehicles for violation of either A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 or A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order, 1982.2. Insofar as the writ petitions 5654/90 and 7841/92 are concerned, they relate to the Petroleum Products and covered by the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 and the writ petition 1598/1992 is concerned with the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order, 1982.3. In the first set of two writ petitions petroleum products were being transported and in the last writ petition what was being transported was palmolein oil, covered by A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order, 1982. In the first two writ petitions covered by the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980, the owner of the product is Oil Corporation; whereas in the last writ petition covered by the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order, 1982, the owner ...
V. Nandalal Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP295; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)815
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioner states that he was receiving electrical energy to his residential house bearing No. 3-5-805 at Hyderguda in Hyderabad city under L.T. consumer service No. D2. 3318 under category I. As he was unable to pay the electricity consumption charges to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, the said service was disconnected in July, 1982 when the meter reading was 3707. On 26-4-1986, he was issued not ice for terminating the agreement stating that a sum of Rs. 1,318.75 remained due and payable to the Board as on that date. As the petitioner did not pay the said amount, final order terminating the agreement was made on 31-1-1987 claiming that a sum of Rs. 1,618.75 ps. was due as on that date. On 15-4-1987, the meter for his Service connection was removed. The petitioner stales that thereafter he approached the officials of the 1st respondent-Board to restore the supply of energy and he was told that it would be restored if he paid a sum of Rs. 1,68...
B. Srinivasa Rao Vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT940; [2000]100CompCas600(AP)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. These three writ petitions raise identical issues and are therefore being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in the above writ petitions are investors who have sold shares through stockbrokers affiliated to the National Stock Exchange of India Limited-respondent No. 1 (for short 'the NSE') and have questioned the action of the NSE in postponing the settlement No. 27 and in conducting special settlement No. 11 which has the effect of postponement of payment of moneys in respect of the shares sold through the first respondent exchange by registered stockbrokers relating to the transactions that have taken place between the period July 3, 1996, to July 9, 1996. The petitioners have dealt with the stockbrokers who are accredited to the first respondent stock exchange and are referred to as trading members. We are concerned here only with respect to the shares and trades involving shares of Maruthi Organics Limited (for short 'the MOL') which have taken...
R. Balanarasamma and ors. Vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT39
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The claimants in O.P. No. 147/89 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District have questioned the award of the Tribunal dated 19-3-1990 wherein the Tribunal while conceding the claim in favour of the claimants to the extent of 50% of Rs. 1,30,800/- (Rs. 65,400/-) held that the accident was due to the negligence of the drivers of the two lorries ADQ 7155 and ATR 600 and not mainly due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry ADQ 7155. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry ADQ 7155 and the 2nd respondent js its insurer. The claim was lodged Under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short the Act) for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation.2. The claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are the children and claimant No. 7 is the mother of the deceased Sathaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4-12-1988 while he was travelling in the lorry ATR 600 due to the alleged negligence of the driver of...
Y. Konda Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP121
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in letter No. T/O/DB/D9/ 1325, Dt. 16-7-1996 on the file of the thirdrespondent herein cancelling the tender under instructions from the Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records contained in the said proceedings dt. 16-7-1996. The petitioners also prays for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the acceptance of the tender communicated to the petitioner in letter No. FM-10.NABARD. Spillway/DB/D9/694-M dated 30-3-1996.2. The factual matrix: the third respondent herein invited tenders on 5-1-1996 from the eligible contractors with respect to Maddileru project from elevation 363 to elevation 379 metres including road, overbridge, over spillway regulator. The petitioner submitted his tender within the time prescribed along with the six other contractors. The tenders were opened on 2-2-1996 and the tender submitted by the petitioner is the lowest, as the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »