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.
B.V. Ramnarayan Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT753; (1997)ILLJ1007AP
ORDER1. The action of the respondent-State Bank of India dated April 13, 1988 declaring that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the service with effect from August 29, 1983 and thereby forfeited his appointment in terms of Rule 92 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, for short 'the Rules', is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the bank as Probationary Officer in the year 1970 and he was confirmed in the service as Officer Grade I with effect from August 1, 1971. In the year 1983, the petitioner was serving as Officer MM-II in the Bible House branch of the bank at Secunderabad. On July 22, 1983, the Regional Manager of the bank issued an order transferring the petitioner to Nandyal branch of the bank as an officer. Sensing that he would be transferred to Nandyal branch of the bank, the petitioner, in advance, had submitted a representation dt. June 21, 1983 to the Chief Regional Manager. In the said representatio...
Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs. Yellappa Appala Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1095; (1998)IIILLJ266AP
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the order of removal of the plaintiff from service is illegal, and for a consequential relief of reinstatement into service together with a sum of Rs. 12,500/- being the arrears of salary from July 1, 1978 till the date of the suit and forfuture salaries.2. The Respondent-plaintiff was appointed on February 7, 1968 as Gangman in the Engineering Department of the appellant-Port Trust. After he worked for about 10 years, he was directed to undergo medical examination by am order dated May 10, 1978 along with others. He was declared medically unfit on June 26, 1978 by the appellant and his services were terminated with effect from the said date on the ground that he was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. In fact he had not suffered from it at any time. Therefore he approached King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and the District Tuberculosis Control Hospital, Visakha...
Kum. Gunavanti Vs. the Vice-chancellor, University of Hyderabad and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT11
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. This appeal has to succeed on the sole ground that although the order ostensibly is one of termination simpliciter, it is preceded by memo of charges in respect of which no proceedings have ever been drawn and no enquiry has been held. On piercing the veil, thus, it is found that the termination is not simpliciter as it purports to be, but it is penal and is visiting the petitioner- appellant with civil consequences.2. Facts in short giving rise to the instant appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court are as follows:- Petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Hindi Translator on 1-4-1989 and was put on probation for two years which was expired on 10-4-1991. Although, according to the petitioner- appellant, she performed her duties satisfactorily, she had certain complaints against her colleagues which were not heeded by the superiors and when some adverse remarks were made, she made representation for expunging them. Her probation was, however, extende...
Sri Venkateswara Oil Company Rep. by Its Partners Vs. Guduru Jalaja Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT1
P. Ramakrishnam, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants. One Guduru Chengareddy, father of the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule vacant site, and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 23,250/- together with future profits.2. The material allegations as disclosed in the plaint are summarised hereunder:The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Guduru Atchamma, the mother of the first plaintiff as she got the same under registered partition deed dated 14-7-1956 between herself and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and others. In fact, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the brother's sons of the said Atchamma. . Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and 4th defendant who is the third respondent herein, who is the son of the first plaintiff are the partners in a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Oil Company, Tirupati and they obtained the plaint schedule site from the said Atcamma on lease for running a business in Diesel and Petrol, etc. The lease commence...
Indian Potash Limited, Secunderabad and anr. Vs. Assistant Director of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD565; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)144; 1997(6)ALT380
ORDER1. The petitioners are A3 and A4 in C.C.No.4/96 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.2. The 1st respondent inspected the shop of M/s. Triveni Enterprises at Adoni on 30-10-1993 and collected the sample of M.O.P. (Muraite of Potash) and sent the sample for testing of standard of M.O.P. to the laboratory, F.C.O. at Bapatla. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, after analysis of the sample issued a report to the 1strespondent on 28-2-1993 slating that the sample was non-standard. The complainant after receipt of the Analyst report issued show cause notice to which a reply was given by the accused. The complainant kept quiet for two years and three moths and thereafter a case was filed under clause 19(1) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985, r/w Sections 7 & 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1995 against the petitioners.3. These proceedings are sought to be quashed in this petition.4. The main anchor of the petitioners is that clause 19(...
Bade Sriramulu Vs. Chedalavada Prabhakara Rao, Minor by Ch. Venkaiah a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT30
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This appeal is brought by the first defendant against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 61 of 1976. The first respondent being minor, represented by his maternal uncle Chunduri Venkaiah filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule property and also for declaration that he is entitled to recover possession of the other half after the life time of his mother, the second defendant together with future profits.2. One Chadalavada Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, a Medical Practitioner at Ongole purchased vacant site at Ongole in the year 1958 and 1961 and constructed a terraced house thereon which is the plaint schedule property. He executed a settlement deed dated 28-5-1966 giving a half share in the said house to his son the plaintiff with absolute rights and the other half to his wife, the second respondent for life and the vested remainder to the plaintiff. Anjaneyulu died on 8-6-1968. The second respondent, his widow was m...
ithanaboyina Kondayya Vs. Yerrabothula Peda Venkayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD337
1. These 16 appeals arise out of the awards passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, in several claim petitions by means of a common judgment, by recording common evidence, the details of which are tabulated as follows:SI. No.Case No.Name of appellantName ot respondentsNature of injuryAmount claimedAmount awarded C.M.A.O.P. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)1.162/90521/84Ithanaboyina Kondaiah 2. M.Sobbara 3. Oriental Fire &Gen.; Insurance Co. Ltd.1. Y. Peda VenkayyaInjury30,000/-15,000/-2.163190519/84Ithanaboyina China Narayans-do-Injury20,000/-6,000/-3.217/90622/84Ithanaboina Apparao-do-Injury30,000/-15.000/-4.218/90523/84Kolte Sakkubai.-do-Injury30,000/-15,000/-5.219/90524/84Sobilla Venkateswaramma-do-Injury30,000/-10,000/-6.220/90558/84Paladugu Saraswathamma-do-injury40,000/-20,000/-7.221/90526/84Maruboyina Nageswaramma-do-Injury30,000/-10,000/-8.222/90533/841. I.V. Ramanamma 2. I. Kondaiah 3. I. Venkateswarar 4. I. Govindu -do- Injury 40,000/- 6,000/-9.223/90534/84...
Smt. K. Lingavva and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, Apsrtc and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT75
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The order of dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad in O.P.No. 243 of 1988 dated 12-6-1990 is questioned by the claimants who lodged the claim Under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- alleging that their bread earner K. Ramaiah was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused (due) to the rash and negligent driving of the bus AAZ 7347 by its driver on 7-9-1988 wherein he sustained injuries and died on 17-9-1988. The claim was resisted denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and entitlement of the claimants to get the compensation and the cause of the death being injuries due to the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased having died ten days after the accident without there being a proof between the death and the injuries, there was no reason to treat the case as one of death to award compensation to the claimants. At the sa...
G. Subas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD694b; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)19; 1996(4)ALT985a; 1997CriLJ1296
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. In Writ Petition No. 291 of 1995, B. Sudershan Reddy, J., by his order dated 1-10-1996 has noted the facts of the case and sought a reference on the question - should this Court exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and compel the authorities to provide security to all the persons who are either leading factions or actively participating in the factions? and that almost all of them are facing serious criminal charges and, :- 'What are the parameters of judicial review in such a situation? The legality and validity, of the Government's policy decision, withholding security to all these factionists also would fall for consideration. Can the Court substitute its own view and declare the policy of the Government as illegal or unconstitutional? It is a judicially manageable situation where appropriate directions could be issued in each case compelling the Police to provide security? Should the State be compelled to spend...
T. Subbaiah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT599
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. Petitioners 9 in number filed the present writ petition praying for regularisation of their services by the second respondent by following G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 contending that they have been working since several years as NMRs. The respondents filed a counter. 2. At the outset Mr. Ram Mohan Reddy appearing for the second respondent brought to my notice that his clients have already regularised the services of petitioners 1, 2 and 8 and the case of others are under consideration. Any regularisation of the services of the other petitioners will be in accordance with law i.e., observation of the rule of reservation and possession of the requisite qualifications and availability of vacancies. Firstly I am of the opinion that G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the second respondent cannot come within the definition of 'State' and instrumentality of Government, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »