Andhra Pradesh Court July 1997 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.
Subrahmanyam and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ417
1. This is an appeal filed by A1, A2 and A3 in STC No. 14 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Essential Commodities Act, Hyderabad against their conviction for the offence under Clause 25 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 punishable under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the dealer of petroleum products, A2 is the manager of A3 firm and A3 is the firm represented by A1. PW 2 the Vigilance Inspector along with Panchayatdars PW 1 and another, visited the business premises of A3 firm on 27-9-1991 at 11.00 a.m. and conducted the density test, verified the stocks in the presence of panch and he obtained samples of High Spirit Diesel and Motor Spirit (petrol) in the presence of panchdars under Ex. P 1 and sent them to ...
K. Ashok Kumar Vs. M.V. Ramanaiah, Commissioner of Municipality, Tandu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)260; 1997(5)ALT240; 1998CriLJ877; 1997(2)LS271
ORDER1. The petitioner filed this contempt case to punish the respondents for contempt of Court, for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.M.P. No. 34975/96 in W.P. No. 28344/96, D/- 14-3-97. 2. The facts in brief, as seen from the affidavit filed in the contempt case and the writ petition, are stated as under : The petitioner is the joint owner along with his parents, of the house bearing No. 4-1-106, Nehru Gunj, Tandur. He applied to the 1st respondent for permission to construct first floor. The 2nd respondent raised objections for the construction and threatened that if any construction was made, it would be demolished. The 2nd respondent has no right over the petitioner's property, to raise any objection. In fact the 2nd respondent has been placing obstacles in the way of petitioner's constriction right from the year 1957, when the house was first constructed. His predecessor-in-interest, has filed a civil suit O.S. No. 54/1 of 1957, on the file of the Dis...
K.R. Bhaskara Babu Vs. Capt. Satish Sharma, Minister for Petroleum and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD798
ORDER1. The petitioner, the sixth respondent and other 44 persons applied for the distributorship of Indane Products, LPG etc., for Kuppam area in response to the notification issued by the fifth respondent, the Indian Oil Corporation in newspapers including 'The Hindu' dated 6-2-94 and 'Eenadu' dated 7-2-1994. The first respondent is the former Minister for Petroleum and NaturalGas, Government of India, the second respondent is the Oil Selection Board Committee of Indian Oil Corporation (OSB), the third respondent is the Chief Regional Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the fourth respondent is the District Collector, Chiltoor and one Mr. Sudeep Gosh is the Non-Member Secretary. But, at the relevant time one Mr. Akhileswaran was the Non-Member Secretary. Interviews were held for selection of the candidates for distributorship at Hotel Bhimas, Tirupalhi on 11-1-1996. The petitioner alleges that he was not informed of the result of the selection but from notice-board of...
Gunturu Zilla Gruha Parisramala Sangham Rice Mill Vs. Government of An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]110STC172(AP)
B. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. These two writ petition raise a common point. The petitioners are miller-dealers having obtained licence under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industry Regulation Act, 1952 and are financed by the Khadi and Village Industries Board. But that alone is not sufficient for claiming exemption from the sales tax as declared under G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue (S) Department, dated June 11, 1980. The said Government Order grants exemption only to the processing of cereals and pulses industry and the question is whether rice comes within that item and definition. 2. A look at Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 at items 20 to 22 clears the mist as cereals are separately and specifically defined at item 20, while paddy at item 21 and rice at item 22. When the word 'cereals' is used without specifying the paddy and rice, there may be a question for consideration as the paddy and rice come within the general definition of 'cereals'; but when ...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. I.V.S. Reddi, Ex-conductor of Apsrtc and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT77
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Heard.2. It is not possible to say that the learned single Judge has not followed the correct principle and decided to interfere with the punishment, which the Labour Court has sustained by ordering fresh appointment to the petitioner- respondent. Learned single Judge has rightly held that when the Labour Court has found that it was absolutely clear that there was no reason for misappropriation of funds, even temporarily, and charges thus were held not proved and the punishment of removal unjustified, the normal relief of reinstatement would have been granted. To grant backwages, however to an employee, in cases of this nature when the award in this respect is set aside, the Court is required to examine various aspects, including whether the concerned employee was gainfully employed and/or whether it would be in public interest to give entire backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The learned single Judge has not been unaware of these...
Union Bank of India, Mahabubnagar Branch Vs. Madhava Rao Brothers
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT32
ORDERKrishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. The tenant-Bank is the appellant which has been directed to pay the rent for the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 1.25 Ps. per Sq.Ft. till the disposal of the Appeal AS 187/1995, vide order in CMP No. 2988/1997.2. Looking to the question involved in this appeal and with the consent of the parties to it, this appeal has been heard on merits and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.3. The facts are jejune. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant-Bank and its two Officers for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 38,139.90 in O.S.No. 51/1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, alleging that the appellant-Bank had agreed to enhance the initial monthly rent of Rs. 595/- after a period of five years from the date it was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question, but it did not pay the agreed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1.25 ps. per Sq. Ft. with effect from 1-1-1985 as also the agreed house ...
D. Kondaiah Vs. Guntha Rama Subbaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT269
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This Revision is filed against the order in C.M.A.No. 30/94 and E.A.No. 306/93 in E.P.No. 64/90 in OS No. 468/86. The Judgment-debtor is the petitioner. There was a money decree, for Rs. 5,71,000/- and there are other mortgages. The second respondent obtained money decree. In execution of the money decree the property was brought to sale. Originally the property was auctioned for Rs. 80,000/- on 16-9-1993 and one G.Venkatarami Reddy s/o G. Adireddy was the highest bidder. However, he did not deposit the amount required under the Rules and therefore, on 26-10-1993 second auction was conducted and the property was sold for Rs. 28,000/-. The judgment-debtor filed a petition Under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC complaining that there is non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 67 Sub-rule (2), CPC and that the price fetched was inadequate and therefore, he suffered substantial injury and hence the sale is liable to be set aside. The learned Prl. Dist. Munsif, Nandyal held that the ...
Geda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs. Geda Muneswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALT735
ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. The order in I.A. No. 2654/1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, dated 22-4-1997 is challenged in this C.R.P.2. The facts leading to this C.R.P. in brief are that the parties herein are brothers. The respondent filed a partition suit O.S. No. 8/1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, in respect of the plaint schedule properties and ultimately the parties entered into a compromise and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 5-3-1991. The revision petitioner is the defendant therein. It is his case that some time later he came to know that some mistakes have crept into the compromise petition and the consequential decree and clarifications are necessary for enforcing the real spirit of the compromise. He accordingly styled this petition as an amendment petition and sought for amendment of compromise petition and plans Under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is resisted by the respondent-plaintiff stating...
Society for Preservation of Environment and Quality of Life, Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: AIR1997AP381
ORDERP. S. Mishra, C. J. 1. Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was first taken up on 23-6-1997 by a learned single Judge of the Court, who passed the following Order:'The petitioner has sought to question the jurisdiction of the Respondents in the light of the 74th Amendment of Constitution of India with regard to the sanctions already granted for construction of 16 Fly-overs which are impugned in the above writ petition. In view of the above, I feel it appropriate the matter be placed before His Lordship the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for posting the same' for being heard by a Bench under Rule 14(b) of Writ Rules.' 2. Styled as a public interest petition by the Convenor of the Roads and Traffic Committee of the petitioner-Society, which is allegedly a voluntary and non-political organisation formed in the year 1988, and registered accordingly under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Cooperative Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, the petitioner seeks t...
Andhra Bank Officers Union Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT54; (1998)ILLJ28AP
1. The controversy between parties is in a very narrow compass in this Writ Petition. The question regarding recognition of trade union of Officers of a bank is at stake. A declaration is sought by Petitioner-Union that the action of the respondent (Andhra Bank) in not following the procedure contemplated in the Schedule appended to the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 (for short the 'Scheme') for recognition of majority union of Officers is ultra vires and illegal. A further direction is sought to be issued to the 3rd respondent to conduct verification for the purpose of recognition of the majority status of Officers' union. 2. The 4th respondent (All India Andhra Bank Officers Federation) is strenuously contesting the claims advanced by the petitioner-Union as regards the petitioner's eligibility for recognition. After narrating the requirements of the Scheme as regards the constitution of Board of Directors as contemplated by the Schedule ann...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »