Andhra Pradesh Court December 1998 Judgments

Ranga Krishna and Company Vs. Vudari Yadagiri

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. On the face of it we do not find any ground for interfering with the docket order which is as follows : Counter not filed. No representation. Respondent called absent and set ex-parte For the affidavit of the petitioner, call on 12.12.1998. In the affidavit of the proprietor of the petitioner Company, Mr. Ranga Krishnaiah, dated 20.12.1998 in support of the application RP. I.A. No. 1425/1998 for stay pending this revision petition, he stated that after service of notice the matter was adjourned to 6.10.1998 and then to 4.11.1998 and again to 19.11.1998 for version/ counter and that on 19.11.1998 he was not present when the matter was called and consequently he was set ex-parte his proprietory concern is opposite party in C.D. No. 71/1998 before the Nalgonda District Forum. He further stated that he told his Counsel that he would attend the District Forum on 19.11.1998 and would take time for filing version / counter as he was not able to get the relevant...

M. Satyanarayana Reddy and Others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurn ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD446; 1999(1)ALT389

ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J 1. This writ petition is filed by six petitioners. AM of them are members of Mandal Praja Parishad of Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District. The second respondent is the elected President of the said Mamlai Praja Parishad. It appears that the first three petitioners are originally members of the Telugu Desam Parly and got elected as candidates of the said party. Thetotal strength of the above-mentioned Mandal Praja Parishad, is ten. One of the members resigned and the consequential vacancy is not filled up by holding election. In the result, there are nine members in the Mandal Praja Parisliad at present, whose total strength is ten.2. It appears, on account of some differences between the first three petitioners and the second respondent, the first three petitioners resigned from the Telugu Desam Party. They along with the other three petitioners, sought to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the second respondent and the same as taken up for consideration by the fir...

R. Advaiah Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Othe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD464; 1999(1)ALT449

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring theRecovery of Debts Due to Bankers and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Central Act, 1961) as ultra vires under the provisions of the Constitution of India and a further declaration, declaring the order of attachment of immovable property (Form No.16) and notice for settling a sale proclamation (Form No. 17) issued by the second respondent in respect of the property situated in Sy. Nos.86/1, 86(b) admeasuring Ac.9.16 guntas and in Sy.No.87 admeasuring Ac.12.12 guntas of Ghatkesar village, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders.2. Petitioner states that he purchased an extent of Ac.21.18 guntas in Sy. No.86/B and Sy. No.87 in Ghatkesar village, Ranga Reddy District for a valuable consideration from Smt. Sayeedunnissa Begum @ Sayeeda Begum and her four sons. Petitioner also obtained registered sale-deeds in the names of his wife, two children, besides in his name. ...

V. Sundara Rao Vs. Nagarjuna University, Guntur and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD457; 1999(1)ALT480

1. Common questions of law and fact are involved in this batch of writ petitions therefore the writ petitions are being disposed of by a single order.2. The net controversy in these petitions is, whether the regulations introduced from the academic year 1994-95 shall be applicable to the students who were admitted in the sessions prior to 1994-95. Certain candidates were admitted in 1993-94, they were detained in terms of the new Regulations. They came to the Court and most of the candidates filed these writ petitions each seeking directions to allow them to appear firstly in Second year, then in third year and then in fourth year of B.Tech course.3. I think the points raised in these writ petitions are no longer res Integra. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and therefore all the petitions are disposed of by this order.4. The point raised in these petitions that, whether the regulations issued after the students had been admitted are applicable to them or not,...

Karra Buchi Babu and Others Vs. the State of A.P., Education Dept. Hyd ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD438; 1999(1)ALT487

1. Common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions therefore these writ petitions are decided by this common order.2. The petitioners herein have challenged the notification being 'Ed-CET-1998', Education Common Entrance Test. By this notification it has been notified that only those who have obtained not less than 45% of marks in Part-II (optional subjects) in Graduation can appear for Ed-CET-1998. This condition has been challenged being contrary to the Rules, it has been stated that it is not proper for the respondents to insist for 45% of marks in Optional subjects. It has been stated that this condition should have been imposed only on the students belonging to the Science group as they get higher marks because of internal examinations and practical examinations. Further, it has been stated that the students who have opted for B.A. and B.Com., degrees are not in position to get 45% marks in their optional subjects. It is further stated that the petitioners be...

Goverdhanlal Pitti Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD624; 1999(1)ALT545

ORDER1. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') with a view to scuttle the Civil Court decree can be said to be mala fide exercise of power.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of a building No.13-1-1238 situated at Seetaram Bagh, Hyderabad. He had leased it out to theGovernment for the purpose of establish ing a School in 1954. The said building is 100 years old. When the petitioner wanted the Government to vacate the building as the building is in dilapidated condition for effecting repairs, the Government refused to vacate the same. Further the Government lias not paid the rent also. Therefore, the petitioner filed RC No. 195/77 on the file of the Rent Collector, Hyderabad. The said RC was dismissed on 15-12-1979 against which RA No.76 of 1980 was filed on the file of the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. The said RA was allowed ...

Syed Sha Musebulla Alvi Vs. Secretary, General Administrative Departme ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD632; 1999(2)ALT130

ORDER1. Rule nisi, Smt. Nanda, learned Standing Counsel, took nolice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition was heard finally.2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor on 19-1-1985. While serving as such, he became disabled, in the sense, he lost vision of boththe eyes and became disabled to perform the duties and functions attached to the post of Conductor. Therefore, the petitioner sought alternative employment in the establishment of the Corporation. Since there was no positive response from the management, the petitioner on earlier occasion, filed WP No.24095 of 1996 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11-9-1997 holding that the petitioner is entitled to pursue review remedy provided under the Regulations, and there-afterwards, the reviewing authority under the Regulations viz., Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected his cla...

Nallam Sri Ramakrishan Murthy and Another Vs. Boggavarapu Subba Rao an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD756; 1999(1)ALT539

ORDER1. These civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by this common order as all of them are directed against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in A.T.A. No.23 of 1995 and cross objections, on 6-10-1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in A.T.C. No.7 of 1988.2. Petitioner No.1 in A.T.C. No.7 of 1988 is the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Second petitioner died during the pendency of the proceedings and as such petitioner Nos.4 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives as per orders in 1A No.1039 of 1991 dated 22-11-1993. The schedule land consists of Ac.28.83 cents situated in Golaprolu village. Admittedly, it belongs to the first petitioner and his two sons viz., the deceased second petitioner and the third petitioner. First petitioner got another son by name Gopikrishna. It is the case of the petitioners that there was an a...

Madepalli Venkata Durga Prasada Rao Vs. Sri Rameswara Swamy Vari Templ ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD703; 1999(1)ALT684

ORDER1. The first respondent-temple filed a petition under Section 13 read with 16 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the petitioner herein from the schedule land on the ground of wilful default in payment of Maktha and also on the ground that the petitioner herein converted the schedule land into a fish tank. The Special Officer-cum-Prl. District Munsif, Kaikalur, allowed the said petition - A.T.C. No. 17 of 1993 on17-3-1997 and directed the petitioner herein to deliver the schedule land to the first respondent-landlord within one month from the date of that order. The petitioner herein who claims to be the cultivating tenant preferred an appeal against the said order with a delay of nine days along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application. 2. The learned District Judge following the decision report in G. Sriramamurthy v. Majji Narsa...

Syed FaizuddIn Vs. Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD102; 1999(2)ALT41

ORDER1. When the petitioner's father also Syed Nazeeruddin was serving as Driver in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation, he was retired from service on the ground of medical invalidation w.e.f. 17-9-1992, and subsequently he died on 25-11-1994, and in between these two dates, there were certain writ proceedings before this Court, where the deceased-father of the petitioner sought directions in WP No.4388 of 1994 to the management of the respondent-Corporation to consider his case for appointment to an alternative post. I do not think it necessary for the Court to refer to the said writ petition and interim and final orders made therein. The simple question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner has any legal right to seek a writ of Mandamus that the respondent-Corporation should appoint him to a suitable post on compassionate ground under thescheme framed by the Corporation, popularly known as 'Bread-winner Scheme'. It is trite to state that th...