Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Meesa Varalakshmi Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT95; [1997]89CompCas586(AP)
Lingaraja Rath, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two cases raise the same question and hence are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in both the cases was one of the respondents in C.D. Nos. 51 and 84 of 1993, before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consumer Forum'). Ex parte order against her having been passed holding her to have been guilty of deficiency of service and for payment of compensation, she filed a petition before the State Forum to set aside the ex parte order and to recall the arrest warrant issued against her as the order had been passed without notice to her. Orders were passed by the State Forum in I.A. Nos. 1745 and 1746 of 1994 in C.D. No. 51 of 1993 and I.A. Nos. 1747 and 1748 of 1994 in C.D. No. 84 of 1993 which are impugned before us, that an application for setting aside the ex parte order did not lie before the State Forum and that the only remedy available to th...
Palasani Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. the Collector and District Magistrat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALD457; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)773; 1996(4)ALT643; 1997CriLJ1453
C.V.N. Sastri, J 1. In this writ petition an order of detention dated 8-8-1996 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, detaining one Vasireddy Peddiraju under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge. 2. In the order of detention it is stated that the detenu is organising a racket of bootlegging in and around Ravulapalem village and is smuggling Indian made liquor like brandy, whisky which are prohibited as per the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he has indulged in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order through dangerous activities. The order sets out the details of a number of cases in which the detenu was involved, and states that with a view to preventing him from further...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. G. Durgaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ950AP
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Depot-I questioning the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Hyderabad in I.D.No. 24 of 1986, dated February 25, 1988. The Industrial Tribunal while holding the charges proved against the 1st Respondent-workman, directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages and thus modified the order of removal. Contending that the relief of reinstatement ought not have been granted by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.2. The 1st Respondent was conducting the bus No. AAZ 3414 on the route Nanded- Hyderabad on September 8. 1983. On a check at stage No. 15 (Naigaon), it was detected that he failed to issue tickets to as many as 16 passengers, who boarded the bus at Nanded and bound for Narsi though he collected a fare of Rs. 120/- (at the rate of Rs.7.50 per passenger) from them. He was also charged of not closing...
Thulluri Ruthomma and ors. Vs. S. Bala Kotaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: II(1997)ACC99; 1997(1)ALT129
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The claimants are the wife and children of one Obulaiah who died in a motor vehicle accident dated 8-9-1985 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with 3rd respondent. The claimants filed O.P. No. 40/87 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ongole claiming a compensation of Rs. 82,000/-. After an enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/ with joint and several liability on respondents 1 and 3.2. The deceased having suffered the injuries succumbed to them on 19-3-1986. His age at the time of the accident is found to be 30 years and the income which was said to be Rs. 1,000/-per month both from the profession of piper and poultry farming, was not accepted, but as a whole Rs. 25,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal is fi...
Konidala Jaya Bharati and anr. Vs. A. Chokkalingam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT688
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. I have gone through the judgment prepared by my learned brother Justice B.S. Raikote, pains taking. While I partly agree with my learned brother's views of the owner of the vehicle being a person aggrieved in the circumstances, yet I would make some independent considerations as I found myself unable to agree with all the discussions made.2. The substantial question arising for consideration is whether in terms of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the owner of the vehicle, when the award amount is covered by the policy, can be regarded as a 'person aggrieved'' to maintain an appeal in the High Court. It is not in doubt that the owner is a person aggrieved when the award amount is more than that covered in the policy. Similarly, when the award amount is less than the policy amount and the claimant prefers appeal claiming enhancement but the owner has preferred no appeal, the owner is a necessary respondent in whose...
Chittoju Brahmaiah Vs. Sarida Subha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT751
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. He filed a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and to issue mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the basement raised in the suit site and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit site. The plaintiff claims title by virtue of a sale deed dated 30-3-1967 in respect of the suit site ad-measuring 131 sq. yards from Manukonda Madhava Rao, who in turn purchased the said property under Registered Sale Deed dated 20-8-1966 from Bezawada Pundari and Namburi Siva Satyanarayana. The defendant claimed that she had purchased site of an extent of 117 sq. yards under Registered sale deed dated 2-11-1967 and 213 sq. yards under Registered sale deed dated 13-11-1970 from Bezawada Pundari.2. The trial Court decreed the suit insofar as title of the pl...
Arya Peddakka and ors. Vs. Jangiti Bala Thimmaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT71
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order in CFR 167/1991 in EA 85/90 in EP 84/87 in O.S. 95/81 dated 26-03-1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Koilkuntla.2. In this case, sale was held on 7-6-1990. EA. 95/90 was filed to set aside the sale. EA was dismissed for defaulton 23-1-1991. Against this, petition was filed on 11-2-1991. The sale was confirmed on 23-1-1991. In these circumstances, the lower Court held that the petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed.3. In this case, the sale was posted to 24-4-90. The sale was stopped, because the Judgment Debtor wanted adjournment and the sale was posted to 7-6-1990. Proclamation was made on 11-5-90. Publication in the local daily was also made on 27-5-1990. Even before the proclamation, the Judgment Debtor died on 1-5-90. It is submitted that the decree holder ought to have brought the LRs. of the J.Dr. on record. This is not done in this case. Therefore, the sale he...
Smt. Konala Syamala Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT205
R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu, Konala Baiarama Ratna Reddy alias Ramulu, s/o. Venkata Reddy of Ravulapalern Village, East Godavari District.2. The Collector and District Magistrate of East Godavari District who is the first respondent, passed the detention orders in reference No: C1(M)/1295/96 dated 8-8-1996 under the provisions of Section 3(2) r/w. Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits; Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) (for short 'the Act'), directing the detention of the detenu on the ground that he is a boot-legger indulging in illegal transportation of liquor in to the districts of East Godavari and West Godavari from outside and has been violating the provisions of the A.P. Excise Ad and A.P. Prohibition Act and is acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in Section 2(a) of the Ac...
B. Balasudarshan Vs. Registrar (Management), High Court of Andhra Prad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT640
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order in ROC. No. 18/96. C.II/1, dated 30-4-1996 passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits, etc.2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Copyist on 10-5-1982, and that he was promoted as Typist in the year 1983 and worked in several places in Kurnool District. While he was working as Typist in the Sub-Court at Atmakur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the 2nd respondent herein on 10-2-1993. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against him. The Enquiry Officer framed seven charges and found charges 3 and 4 proved in his enquiry report dated 22-8-1994 in Enquiry No. 1 of 1993. The 2nd respondent agreed with the Enquiry Officer as regards his findings on charges 3 and 4, but disagreed with him as regards findings on charge No. 5 and found that charge also proved ag...
Makka Bapanaiah Vs. Y. Malleswaram and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: II(1998)ACC462; 1997(2)ALT646
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The appellant-claimant sustained injury to the right leg at the knee point in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17-5-1983 at about 11-30 a.m., caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. ADC 8945 by its driver, the 1st respondent. He laid a claim for Rs. 25,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The 1st respondent is the Driver. Respondent No. 2 is the owner, Respondent No. 3 is the insurer and respondent No. 4 is another driver who is said to have found in the driver's seat after the accident. The claim was resisted. After enquiry/ the Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs. 6,750/- and awarded it in addition to the interest at 12% per annum from 28-10-1987, the date when the O.P., was numbered, till the date of realisation but without costs. The learned Advocate for the claimant has contended that the amount awarded is inadequate inasmuc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »