Andhra Pradesh Court December 1996 Judgments
B.V. Subba Reddy Vs. the Chief Engineer, Hyderabad Urban Development A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP226
ORDER1. At the time of arguments, the counsel for all the parlies submitted that as the arguments in the W.P.M.P. and the writ petition, are one and the same, they agreed to dispose of the main writ petition.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents-1 and 2 in not disqualifying the 3rd respondent for submitting bid for the package No. VI, a.b.c. as the 3rd respondent did not fulfil with the pre-qualifications as prescribed by the prc-qualification document.3. It is submitted by Mr. Ramana Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent invited applications in Tender Notice No. HUDA/DEV/CE/GLU/ 9-95-96 dated 20-1-1995 from the leading Contractors/Firms of repute and other appropriate class of contractors registered with Government of Andhra Pradesh/ CPWD/MES/Railways with suitable experience in construction of Flyovers/Bridges/ROBs etc. for pre-qualification for the works of construction of Flyovers/Br...
Tag this Judgment!S. Samuel and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT60; (1997)IILLJ473AP
ORDER1. Petitioners 243 in number who are working in various capacities in the 2nd respondent Society which was registered under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and is owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in stopping payment of minimum bonus as contemplated under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act in the shape of ex-gratia, pursuant to the G. O. Ms. No. 366 Finance and Planning Department, dated October 29, 1993, wherein the Government directed the public sector undertakings and Co-operative enterprises owned by it not to pay/sanction bonus/Ex-gratia until further orders as the issue of payment of Bonus/Ex-gratia to the employees of the public sector undertakings is under consideration separately. 2. The Government as well as the 2nd respondent filed their counters contesting the claim of the petitioners for payment of bonus. While it is the ca...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Sarawagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dock Labour Board and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT280; (1998)IIILLJ834AP
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16823 of 1984 dated July 6, 1988, the petitioner preferred this appeal.2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as in the writ petition. The petitioner is an exporter in manganese ore. A site was allotted to it on a lease basis in the Visakhapatnam Dockyard to load the manganese ore into the plot allotted to it. The petitioner secures manganese ore by bringing through dumpers for loading into the ships. Earlier it used to get by rail and get unloaded into the plot. The loading and unloading operations are carried on through the petitioner's Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Its clearing and forwarding agents are utilising the Dock Labour allotted by the Dock Labour Board. The payment of wages to the Dock Labourers are paid by clearing and forwarding agents according to the rates in force fixed by the Dock Labour Board. The petitioner is not utilising the serv...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Rahim Saheb and ors. Vs. the A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT136
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondents- Wakf Board dated 31-8-1996 under which an ad hoc committee consisting of nine members is appointed for a period of one year from the date of the order to manage the affairs of the Jamia Mosque, Orvakal, Kurnool District. The said proceedings are obviously issued by the respondent-Wakf Board in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995, for short 'the Act'.2. The 1st petitioner herein claims to be a Muthawalli of the Mosque in question which is admittedly a Wakf. Petitioners 2 to 5 claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased hereditary Muthawalli. It is asserted that the petitioners herein are jointly managing and maintaining the Mosque and providing all amenities to the residents and Muslim families in the village. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the duties of Peshimam and Maozam are being performed by one of the petitioners as...
Tag this Judgment!Vadlamudi Panduranga Prasad and ors. Vs. Registrar (Management), High ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT503
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The six petitioners in this Writ Petition seek a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction 'declaring the action of the third respondent (the Munsif Magistrate at Macherla in Guntur District) as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the third respondent to allow the petitioners into the Munsif Magistrate Court, Macherla, Guntur District for discharging their duties as Advocates' clerks', etc.2. The first petitioner has given the affidavit on behalf of himself and the other five petitioners in support of this Writ Petition. He states that himself and the other petitioners have been working as Advocates' clerks with their respective Advocates in the Munsif Magistrate Court at Macherla since 1987 onwards and that they had been discharging their duties without any adverse remarks from the Judicial Officers, Court staff and Adv...
Tag this Judgment!Azam Sharief Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT442
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner prays for an appropriate Writ particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in proceedings No. E/3958/96 dated 21-9-1996 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same by declaring it as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner also prays for a consequential direction to the respondents directing them to continue and permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop No. 199, Mir Mohammad Pahadi, Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the subsistence of the authorisation in accordance with law.2. The petitioner herein is an authorised fair price shop dealer of Fair price shop No. 199 known as Mir Mohammad Pahadi, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The authorisation is renewed and valid upto 31-3-1997. The authorisation is granted under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, for short 'the C...
Tag this Judgment!Kurminayaka Mothilal Vs. Mohd. JahiruddIn (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT471
ORDERS. Dasaradharama Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises situated in a business locality at Parvatipuram. Prior to his purchase, the respondent tenant took it on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/- from the vendor in the year 1978 under Ex.A-2. As per the terms of the lease, the tenant can run the photo studio business and also reside in the premises. The landlord filed eviction petition in the year 1985 on the ground that he requires the premises for business purposes and that he has no other own building in the town. The main plea of the tenant in his counter is that the requirement is not bona fide and the eviction petition was filed to extract higher rent. The learned Rent Controller held that as the lease is composite for both residential and non-residential the eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. Lambu Indira Bai, 1987 (2) ALT 504 and dismissed the eviction petition without going into the question...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Bai and ors. Vs. E. Rajeswari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT797
S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.1. This is a revision filed by tenants arising out of eviction petition filed by the landlady on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from November, 1991 to August, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 155/-per month. In the counter, the tenants pleaded that there is no fixed date for payment of rent, that they have been depositing rents in court pursuant to the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.3/92 and that they have not defaulted. Having lost in both the courts, the petitioners have come up with this revision.2. Mr. N.V. Ranganadham, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that as the rent sent by tenants for the month of November, 1991 by money order was refused by the respondent and returned to the petitioners on 13-11-1991, they sent lawyer's notice dated 11-12-1991 despatched by registered post acknowledgement due on 12-12-1991 calling upon the landlady to nominate a bank so that they can deposit the rents in the bank. On the same day ren...
Tag this Judgment!Ritz Hotels (Hyderabad) Limited and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT538
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The first petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is M/s. Ritz Hotels (Hyderabad) Limited (for short 'the Ritz'). The facts giving rise to these petitions are common, so they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. M/s. Ritz Hotel (Private) Limited, Hyderabad, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, obtained on lease from the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad the premises called 'Hill Fort Palace' situate at Hyderabad for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- on January 1,1955. After the expiry of the lease of five years, renewal of lease for a further period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,171/- was agreed to by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent, and a lease deed was accordingly executed between the parties. During the said period the first petitioner(the Ritz) came into being and as the successor-lessee entered into a supplementary lease agreement with the first responde...
Tag this Judgment!Chaliki Seethayamma Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Spl. Tahsildar (L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT105
ORDERA. Hanumanthu, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order and Decretal Order dated 1-7-1992 passed in I.A. No. 2546 of 1991 in O.P. No. 93 of 1981 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in East Godavari District, refusing to amend the Decree and the Award passed in O.P. No. 93 of 1981.2. The facts, in brief, resulting in filing of this Revision Petition are as follows:-The respondent-Land Acquisition Officer acquired an extent of Ac.3.00 in S. No. 531/4 situated in Bheemavaram, Samalkota village for providing site for summer storage reservoir. The said land belonged to the revision petitioner. The respondent by his Award No. 2/79 dated 16-1-1979 fixed the compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. At the instance of the petitioner, a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. The said reference was numbered as O.P. No. 93 of 1981. After enquiry, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge by his Award dated 20-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »