Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD321
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J 1. The conflict of service interests amongst the Diploma Engineers Association and Graduate Engineers Association of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, vis-a-vis A.P. State Electricity Board Engineers Assoication and the Board proper and their rival claims, necessitated adjudication by this Court in this batch of writ petitions.2. The brief history of the case and the necessary facts as could be gathered from the pleadings and other material on record are as follows: In the year 1959, the hitherto Electricity Department of the Andhra Pradesh State Government was constituted as the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Till 1970 the service conditions of its employees were governed by the A.P. Electrical Subordinate Service Rules and A.P. Electrical Service Special Rules. Under these rules, the Section Offices in the Engineering Service establishment of the Board were manned by Junior Engineers and Supervisors of Grade-I and II. By G.O. Ms. No.2773,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD147; 1999(1)ALT58
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. All these petitioners arc erstwhile part-time Village Officers. The post of part-time Village Officer was abolished by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by issuing an Ordinance, with effect from 6-1-1984. In pursuance of the said Ordinance No. 1 of 1984, about 37,000 posts of part-time Village Officers stood abolished. Challenging the said ordinance, the petitioners herein and several others filed a batch of Writ Petitions before this Court. At the time of hearing of those batch of writ petitions, the then learned Advocate-General produced an Assurance Letter dated 10-1-1984 issued by the Government giving an undertaking to appoint/absorb the eligible Village Officers in the Revalue Department as Village Assistants. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.1048 dated 11-9-1985 creating 4,800 vacancies of Village Assistants for absorption of eligible Village Officers as Village Assistants.2. While so, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD274; 1999(1)ALT259
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. Theappellant which is an association of moneylenders and pawn brokers filed Writ Petition No.5250 of 1987 questioning the Notification dated 11-4-1987 issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad making an upward revision of the rates of licence fee fixed under Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'H.M.C. Act'). The said notification enhancing the licence fee was issued after obtaining the sanction of the Standing Committee and the General Body of the Corporation. The licence fee was fixed at Rs.500/- in respect of money-lending and pawn broker business and at Rs.200/- for those engaged in money exchange operations. The members of the petitioner association are said to be pawn brokers (vide para 7 of the affidavit). Initially, in the year 1992, the business of money-lending and pawn broker were notified as trades or operations which require licence. In the year 1985, the licence fee was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD269; 1999(1)ALT193
ORDER1. The petitioner is a cement manufacturing Company. It is a high tension consumer of electricity supplied by the A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB), first respondent herein. The petitioner assails the action of the second respondent i.e., Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, APSEB, Khammam, in levying penalty to the tune of Rs.9,92,466.91 ps. towards proportionate energy consumed by the petitioner in excess of the Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) in the bill dated 28-9-1988 for the Month of September, 1988, as being arbitrary and illegal.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's CMD is 15,000 KVA. As against the CMD of 15,000 KVA, the maximum demand recorded during the month of September, 1988 was 16,320 KVA. The petitioner has thus exceeded the contracted demand by 1,320 KVA. There is no dispute that for the portion of the demand in excess of the contracted demand, the Board is entitled to collect at twice the normal charge, which is Rs.36/- per KVA. Accordingly, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(4)ALT376
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In the writ petitions, which give rise to these writ appeals, the validity of promotions to the cadre of Area Managers, Branch Managers, Field Supervisors and Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers employed in various Grameena Banks located in the State of Andhra Pradesh was in issue. The learned single Judge, following the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K. V. Prasanna Kumar v. Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, : 1994(3)ALT621 (D.B.) (Upheld by Supreme Court in : (1999)ILLJ754SC ) allowed the writ petitions and set aside the promotions. The Banks were directed to make fresh selections on the basis of seniority-cum-merit within the time limit prescribed in the judgment. The Grameena Banks-established under the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act have filed these writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge. Some of the promoted officers of the Banks have also filed the appeals. At the stage of admission of the writ appeals, a Division Bench of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD395; 1999(1)ALT1
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff. He had instituted a suit in OS No. 123 of 1994 against the respondents in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Chittoor for certain reliefs. During the pendency of suit, the respondents/defendants filed IA No.862 of 1997 alleging that the suit is barred under Sections 70, 118 and 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The said IA was heard on merits and was allowed and OS No.123 of 1994 was dismissed by docket order. Aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.862 of 1997 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, the present revision petition is filed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the Counsel for the respondent at the admission stage.3. IA No.862 of 1997 was allowed and the effect of allowing IA is the dismissal of the suit in OS No.123 of 1994. When the suit itself was dismissed, the order passed in IA No.862 of 1997 merges with the final order of dismissal of the suit and there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant whose complainant C.D.C. No. 167/ 1996 before the Chittoor District Forum was dismissed by order dated 3.10.1998 by that Forum. The opposite parties in that C.D.C. are the respondents before us. 2. The case of the complainant is that his vehicle i.e., tractor and trailor assembly bearing Registration Nos. ATC-2192 and ATC-2193 respectively, was insured with the opposite parties i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited on 28.8.1994 and that the said vehicle during the policy was in force was involved in an accident on 22.6.1995 and was damaged in that accident. He laid a claim on the Insurance Company for Rs. 31,065/- towards purchase of spares, Rs. 5,000/- towards tinkering and painting charges and also Rs. 8,000/- towards labour charges i.e. in all Rs. 44,065/-. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor and, after receiving the report of the Surveyor, it repudiated the claim of the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD209; 1999(1)ALT565
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in OA No.205 of 1995 on the file of the third respondent as invalid.2. The second respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad has instituted a suit in OA No.205 of 1995 against the petitioners herein on the file of the third respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,16,58,000/-. The said suit was decreed on 11-7-1997 against the petitioners herein. Petitioners did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree in OA No.205 of 1995 before the appellate forum at Mutnbai, but instead approached this Court with a prayer as indicated above.3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 5-11-1997, has issued an interim direction on the same day in WPMP No.33882 of 1997 to the effect that in the event of any decree being passed in OA No.205 of 1995, the same shall not be executed until further orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD398; 1999(1)ALT327
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application for the condonation of delay of one year, one month and ten days in filing application for setting aside the order dated 14-9-1992 dismissing the suit for default.2. This matter has had a long and checkered history. The parties are closely related. The petitioners and the respondents are sisters. The two petitioners herein and (he 2nd respondent filed the suit OS. No.889 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15-10-1965 alleged to have been executed by the 1 st respondent in their favour agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a lotal consideration of Rs.21,330/-. The suit was filed on the allegation that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement and that subsequently, the balance of sale consideration of Rs.6,330/-was also paid on 21-3-1975 and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD586; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)276; 1999CriLJ979
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-4-1994 rendered in SC No.242 of 1993 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalli under which the appellant herein (A4) has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 IPC and A3 has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC. A4 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.500A, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for two months, and A3 has been sentenced to R.I. for one year six months (there is no appeal on behalf of A3).2. It would appear, Al to A3 along with Ihe appellant herein (A4) were originally charged for the offence under Section 396 IPC; the case against Al and A2 was separated as they were found absconding. The trial was proceeded with, in respect of A3 and A4.3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated briefly as follows:On 26-2-1992 the private bus bearing No.TDJ 4699 driven by the driver Shaik Kalandar (PW1) left Madanepal...
Tag this Judgment!