Andhra Pradesh Court December 1998 Judgments

A.P.S.E.B. Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer and Another Vs. K. Nara ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. we do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the opposite parties in Consumer Case No. 274/1994 questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum dated 7.11.1998. The complainant in that consumer case is the respondent before us. 2. The complainants father got the connection to his house under Service Connection No. 1183. He died sometime in the year 1982 and the complainant as his heir has been residing in that house. The complainant became the owner of that house by succession as heir of his father and he has been residing in it. He was paying the electricity charges regularly. He is an Advocate. His complaint is that all of a sudden, the connection for his house was disconnected without any notice on 13.8.1993. He gave notice to the appellants and he received a reply from the 2nd appellant on 29.9.1993 stating that the monthly slab amount of Rs. 120/- for the month of May, 1993 was not paid and therefore the disconnection was effected. ...

Ch. Eswari Laxmi Bai Vs. Vice-chairman and Manging Director, Apsrtc, M ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD103; 1999(1)ALT814; (1999)IILLJ657AP

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddy, ACJ 1. Delay condoned. 2. We find no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge in holding that the appellant-writ petitioner is not entitled to insist on a job of Attender being provided to her instead of the job of conductor which was offered to her on compassionate grounds consequent on the demise of her husband. As the appellant did not accept the offer, technically speaking the offer has lapsed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the pendency of the litigation, we consider it just and proper to direct the respondent to revive Ihe offer and if the appellant is prepared to take up the job of conductor, the same shall be provided to her. The offer shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that under the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, pass in 7th standard is the minimum qualification prescribed and according to the school transfer certificate furnished by the w...

Ramanadh Poultry Farms, Peddakaparthy Village and ors. Vs. Acto, Ctcp, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD671; 1999(2)ALT99

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, ACJ 1. The prayer in these writ petitions is to issue an appropriate writ or order declaring the levy and collection of tax by the 1st respondent at the check posts on the goods (poultry feed ingredients) brought under valid documents as illegal and against Section 38 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to refund the taxes illegally collected.2. The petitioners are doing poultry business. It is their case that the supplements or ingredients needed for poultry feed are purchased from registered dealers outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and the said goods are brought to their poultry farms in the course of inter-State purchase. It is also their case that such consignments are supported by valid documents such as way bills. The petitioners submit that the ingredients so purchased are meant for use in poultry feed for the purpose of captive consumption. The collection of tax on the goods so purch...

G. Ramulu Vs. Deport Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Depot and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD633; 1999(1)ALT526

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, ACJ 1. The learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition in limini on the representation made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he would prefer an appeal against the impugned order of removal. The learned Counsel now urges that in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.S.P. Rao v. APSRTC (WA No. 102 of 1996, dated 26-2-1996), the punishment cannot be sustained as there was denial of reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the enquiry report was not served before issuing the show cause notice proposing punishment. We cannot accept this contention. In that case, a copy of enquiry report was not served at all. It is not the ratio of the decision that in point of time, the copy of the enquiry report must first be served and thereafter only, the show cause notice proposing the punishment should be issued. The requirement of furnishing enquiry reportcannot be viewed as a retual, the idea being to enable the employee to make an effect...

V. Balakrishna and Others Vs. General Manager, Mth Division, Hmt Ltd., ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD432; 1999(1)ALT482; [1999(82)FLR212]; (1999)IILLJ1310AP

ORDER1. In this batch of writ petitions common question of law arises for consideration and, therefore, they are taken up for hearing and disposal together.2. All the petitioners herein have retired on 31-10-1996 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') formulated by the respondent-Company. It is their specific case that they are entitled to receive gratuity amounts as per Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 7 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules'), on the date of retirement itself. It stated that the respondent-Company failed to pay the gratuity amount on the date of retirement itself and paid the amount in the month of April, 1997, though they have retired in the month of October, 1996. Under those circumstances, the petitioners claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is stated that the inaction and negligence on the part of the respondent-Company in paying the gratuity amount had caused ...

A. Monm and Another Vs. Gopinath

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD517; 1999(1)ALT459

ORDER1. The Review Petitioner herein was a landlord and the respondent herein was a tenant of the petition schedule premises. The petitioner herein filed RCC No.223 of 1981 on 27-7-1981 in tiie Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction by terminating the tenancy of the respondent herein on various grounds. The Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on evidence dismissed the claim of the landlord-petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlord-review petitioner herein carried the matter in appeal by filing RA No.19 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge on hearing both sides dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the landlord-review petitioner herein filed CRP No.679 of 1994 in this Court. This Court dismissed the aforesaid CRP by an order dated 5-2-1997. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlord-review petitioner herein filed SLP (C) No.15734 of 1997 in the H...

Shaik Ramjan Vs. State

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD740; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)606; 1999(1)ALT291; 1999CriLJ2161

1. There were four accused in Crime No. 13 of 1993 registered under Section 366A and 372 IPC. Two accused, being A3 and A4 were absconding, the charge was split and A1 and A2 were tried after committal. They were tried by Assislant Sessions Judge, Eluru. A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 366A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine she had to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. She was also convicted for the offence under Section 372 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine she was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A2 was acquitted.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as they learned Public Prosecutor and the record was examined.3. The Prosecution levelled the following allegations against the accused:The de facto complainant Afzalunnisa alias Puthli Begum is the mother of the ...

A.J. Yuvaraj Vs. Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant, Mr. A.J. Yuvaraj. He had preferred O.P. No. 1086/1994 against the respondents in this appeal before the Hyderabad District Forum complaining that he was not informed immediately by the N.S. Road branch of the Syndicate Bank i.e., the 2nd opposite party (2nd respondent before us), when they received demand draft No. 7268 dated 26.11.1992 for U.S. Dollars 3094.33 and that he came to know about it only after he addressed a letter dated 7.7.1994 to Barclays Bank of Zambia Limited, at Lusaka, Zambia and they replied that demand draft was sent to the 2nd respondent on 25.11.1992 itself. After that he approached the N.S. Road Branch (2nd respondent) and found that the said demand draft was lying with them for the past two years. After he approached the 2nd respondent bank they initiated action to revalidate the draft by sending the same to Barclays Bank of Zambia Limited, at Lusaka and then got the amo...

Chiguripati Suryanarayana and Another Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD590; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)300; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)219; 1999CriLJ1201

ORDERVaman Rao, J. 1. Roth these appeals (Crl. Appeal No. 1741 of 1997 preferred by Al and A2 and Crl.Appcai No. 1734 of 1997 preferred by A3 and A4) are direcfed against Judgment dated 4-12-1997 in SC No.239 of 1994 on the file of Addl.Sessions Judge, Guntur under which A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC, A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A2 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and A5 to A8, A10 to A13 were acquitted. A1 to A4 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC, A1 was sentenced to under go life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 302 IPC, A2 to A4 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. The facts of t...

Managing Director, Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and Others Vs. N. Sha ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD96; 1999(2)ALT28

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddy, ACJ. 1. The management of the APSRTC haschallenged the order of the learned single Judge in WP No.24143 of 1997. The respondent herein was working as Driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was removed from service by the disciplinary authority with effect from 25-8-1996 on the charge of unauthorised absence from 12-3-1996 to 18-3-1996. On appeal, the appellate authority reinstated him into service as fresh candidate. Questioning that order, the writ petition was filed. The learned Judge having found that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge proved against the respondent-writ petitioner, set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and that of appellate authority modifying the punishment. The learned Judge directed reinstatement with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits. It was further directed that for the period of absence, he shall be granted leave of any kind which was available. Questionin...