Andhra Pradesh Court December 1997 Judgments

Commissioner, Ongole Municipality Vs. A. Venkateshwar Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The complainant was a permanent employee of the Ongole Municipality from 1.8.1980 and he retired as Head-master on the afternoon of 31.3.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. In his complaint the stated that he contributed a sum of Rs. 22/- per month towards Provident Fund amount through deduction from salary and that the appellant, who was the opposite party in the DistrictForum, also credited the enhanced D.A. as per the Government orders and that the total amount contributed to Provident Fund account came to Rs. 15,333.80 ps. including the arrears of D.A. credited to that account. He further stated that the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 245 Finance and Planning Department dated 1.7.1985 for payment of interest @ 10.5% p.a. with effect from 1.4.1985 and subsequently under G.O. Ms. No. 167 of the same department dated 19.6.1986 increased the ...

Chaganti Lakshmi Rajyan and ors. Vs. Kolla Rama Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(1)ALD497; 1998(1)ALT621

ORDER1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a reference made by our learned brother Justice Krishna Saran Shrivastav, who doubled the correctness of/ the decision reported in /I Srinivasa Rao v. 7. Subba Rao, 1972 (1) An.WR (SN) 13, which is a case of father absconding being a defendant in a suit filed on the foot of a promissory note, and sons claiming to be impleaded as defendants, has been accepted. 2. The suit O.S.No.22 of 1995 is filed on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by one Mr. Raghava Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of Petitioners 2 to 4. Alter summons were received by Raghava Rao, he engaged aqr Advocate, who sought time for filing written statement on 12-9-1995. In fact adjournments were granted on payment of costs, and the suit was finally posted to 17-10-1995, on which dale, the defendant was called absent and set ex parte. An ex parte decree was passed on 27-10-1995. The respondent - decree holder filed E.P.No. 118 ...

Burra Ramesh Vs. Koppisetti Venkateswara Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD114; 1998(2)ALT222

1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment due to commonality of law and facts involved.2. The 1st respondent had obtained one money decree in O.S. No. 322/80 and another money decree in O.S.No.334/80 against the 2nd respondent. He filed E.P. No. 14/88 in O.S.No.322/30 and E.P.No.15/88 in O.S.No.334/80. The house bearing Door No-4-15 and 4-15/A (old) and 4-13 (new) has been attached. The appellant, who is the son of the 2nd respondent judgment debtor, filed Objection 167/89 in E.P.14/88 and objection 171/89 in E.P.15/88 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the attached house had fallen to his share inthe mutual partition effected in the month of December, 1984 and evidenced by registered partition deed, Ex.A1, dated 30-4-1985 and from the date of the partition he has been in possession and enjoyment of the attached house and, therefore, it is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decrees against his father. The d...

K. Jhothi Prasad Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD274

ORDER1. The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted into service as Development Officer in the 1st respondent Insurance Company and his next promotion was Assistant Administrative Officer which he was holding at the regional office, Hyderabad, but, the petitioner is transferred by the impugned proceedings dated 21-7-1997 to Branch Office, Hanamakonda, which, it is alleged, is a result of malafide action of the 2nd respondent for certain alleged transactions outside the purview of the service. The learned Counsel questions the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that the 1st respondent has set out certain guidelines for the job protection and transfer policy of the officers and in point 1.2(a) of the said guidelines it is clearly stated that transfer of Officers should be planned only once in a year during the period of March-May. It is further submitted that according to point No.3.5 of the guidelines, an officer sha...

Jaggavarapu Krishna Reddy and anr. Vs. Jaggarvarapu Chittemma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD286; 1998(2)ALT95

ORDER1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 119/89 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Khammam. The respondents herein are the defendants along with Defendant No. 1, Jaggavarapu Venkata Reddy. The parties are members of the same family as having been closely related. The plaintiffs are the 4th defendant are three sons of the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is the wife of 4th defendant and 3rd defendant is son of 4th defendant. The plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 4 were members of the joint family. The suit schedule properties and other properties belong to the joint family. They effected partition of the joint family properties under a partition deed Ex. A1 dated 29-5-1965 and the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the 1st defendant. The Defendant No. 1 alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A2 gift deed dated 11-9-1984. The plaintiffs initially filed the suit for declaration that Ex. A2 is not binding on them as they ...

G.L. Modi and Another Vs. Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt., Ltd. and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD365; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)99; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)170

ORDER1. These two petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings in CC No. 1095/96 and CC No.17/97 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. The petitioners herein arc A7 and A4 respectively in both the cases and the 1st respondent herein is the complainant and respondents 2 to 6 are the other accused in the said cases.3. As the parties are the same and the point involved in both the petitions is the same, these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.4. The 1st respondent herein is a Limited Company and it manufactures the equipments relating to Telecommunications and allied activities. The 1st respondent filed the complaint in CC No. 1095/96 against these petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as Act). It is alleged in the complaint tiiat during the course of business, the 1st accused company represented by other accused...

Dr. Subhendu Sen (Vsm) Vs. Government of India and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(1)ALD773

1. The petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the findings of General Court-Martial as confirmed by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Command (3rd respondent) on the ground that the findings are contrary to law and evidence on record, biased and mala fide .2. The petitioner had passed MBBS from Calcutta University in the year 1967. He joined Army Medical Corps in the year1969 and was commissioned in the Indian Army on 23-7-1969. He rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in Indian Army.3. On 10-11-1993 he was charge-sheeted for the following acts of misconduct:(1) That the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs.51,400/-belonging to the persons subject to Military Law while he was working as Commanding Officer 2089, Field Ambulance at Kamptee; (2) That he dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs.74,641.55ps. belonging to the CSD Canteen during the period 22-6-19911022-11-1992; (3) That he dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,684/- belonging...

M. Rajender Alias Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998CriLJ3137

ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved for not releasing him on parole by the State Government, 1st respondent herein. He filed the writ petition seeking a direction to release him on parole for 90 days. 2. The petitioner was the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 42/79 on the file of the 1st Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He was tried for the offences u/Ss. 302 read with 149, IPC, along with other accused. He was acquitted by the Sessions Court by its judgment dt. 10-8-1979. However, on appeal the High Court, in Crl. Appeal No. 1244/79, convicted and sentenced him for life imprisonment. The said conviction and sentence have become final and the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment in Chenchalaguda Central Prison, Hyderabad. 3. The petitioner states that his mother, aged 90 years, is seriously ill and virtually on death bed. He is the only earning member being the father of three school going children. To provide medical facility to his mother and to solve financial problems, t...

P.V. Subbaiah Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Electronics Corporat ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD44

ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as Male Nurse (Medical) in Electronics Corporation of India Limited-1st respondent. He was an ex-serviceman. He was placed under suspension on 08-06-1992 on a charge that he had committed theft of 30 tablets of Colinol and 100 capsules of 500 Mg. of BAC-Ban (Ampicilion + Cloxoycillin). The charge-sheet dated 13-6-1992 was thereafter issued and an enquiry was conducted against him. But according to the petitioner he was denied the opportunity to take the help and assistance of a co-worker in presentation of his case The whole enquiry, according to the petitioner was an empty formality and no independent witnesses were examined. The version of defence witnesses was not taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. According to the petitioner, the enquiry officer was prejudiced against him and lacked impartiality. Further, according to the petitioner, the Chairman who was the appellate authority exercised the power of disciplinary authority and awar...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. A. Nageswara Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1998)148CTR(AP)45; [1998]231ITR215(AP); [1998]100TAXMAN34(AP)

ORDER--Appellate authority had considered issue not covered by revisional order Ratio :Only that portion of the order of assessment merges with the appellate order which has been considered and decided by the appellate authority, the impugned order in respect of the matters which are not covered by the appellate order and are left untouched, to that extent survives permitting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner. Held :The power conferred upon the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act to revise an order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer is in identical terms with the power conferred under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise an order passed by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The position of law that emerges from the law is that although the doctrine of merger applies to the Wealth Tax Act proceedings, the extent to which it applies depends upon the scope and subject-matter of appeal and the decision rendered by...