Andhra Pradesh Court December 1998 Judgments

Managing Director, Apsrtc and ors. Vs. M. Sankaraiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALT89

P. Venkatarama Reddi, A.C.J.1. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service but without backwages and other attendant benefits. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition with a direction to compute the periodical increments that would have been earned by the workman had he been in service during the cut off employment period and to fix the salary payable to him after his reinstatement by taking into account such increments. Contending that notional increments cannot be added for fixing the salary of the workman after reinstatement, the present writ appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C.2. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that backwages having been denied to the respondent, the benefit of notional increments cannot also be given. It is not as if the learned single Judge directed any arrears for the past period to be paid. It is only a question of fixation of the salary ...

Nuzhat Abdul Jaleel Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anothe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The complainant is the widow of Mr. Syed Abdul Jaleel who died on 14.10.1989 at King Faisal Hospital, Riyadh (K.S.A.). The insured was an American National. It is not in dispute that he was issued a policy dated 20.2.1989 for Rs. 5,00,000/- on his life on a proposal made by him on 20.12.1988. Premia were to be paid half yearly and apart from the premium at the time of issuance of the policy, he paid the second premium in August, 1989. Thus the policy was in force when he died. The claim was made by the complainant on 1.2.1990. Subsequently in the letter dated 17.2.1990 addressed to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) she stated as follows : My husband worked till 4.10.1989 and the next two days happened to be weekly holidays. Therefore I and my husband flew to Riyadh to visit my sister and to fly back to Dhahran as the morning of 7.10.1989 to which facilitates joining duty in time at A1 Jubail. On 6th October, 1989 my husband complaining chest p...

Shanti Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(89)ECC753

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, Actg. C.J.1. We cannot say that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in dismissingthe appeal filed against the order of the appellate authority refusing to condonethe delay and to entertain the appeal. In view of the specific provision containedin the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, the condonation ofdelay beyond the period of 90 days does not arise. The ratio of the decisionin G. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P. sought to be relied upon by theappellant's counsel has no application as the provision with which theDivision Bench was concerned in the said case was materially different andthere was no embargo against entertainment of appeal after a particulartime-limit. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petitions at theadmission stage subject to the direction that the disputed duty shall not becollected for a period of six weeks....

T. Damodhar Rao and Others Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD587; 1999(2)ALT114

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counselfor the petitioner and Sri C. V. Ramulu, learned standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC.2. It is conceded at the Bar that the instant writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC v. P.T. Rao, : 1998(3)ALD45 (DB). In this writ petition also the petitioners claim similar relief. It is stated that the petitioners have been appointed by the respondent-Corporation through the process of regular selection, but were appointed on casual basis. The fact remains that their services were regularised on various dates as noted hereunder :S. No.NameE.No. Date of AppoinmentDate of Regularisa-tion1.T. Damodhar Rao (1stPetn.)38443611-6-911-8-19952.H- Hari Babu (2ndPetti.)38416719-5-19901-8-19933.A. Narasimha Rao (3rd Petn.)3844814-6-19911-8-19944.M. Raja Rao (4th Petn.)38456328-2-19921-8-19965.B. SrinivasaRao (5th Petn.)3844338-6-19911-8-19946.D. Srinivasa Rao (6thPetn.)39216019-5-19901-8-19947.K. Venkata Ratta...

A. Vasudevaiah Vs. Executive Officer, Ttd, Tirupathi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD339; 1999(1)ALT425

ORDER1. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Welding Instructor by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 27-3-1983 and was posted in the 2nd respondent-Institute. His services were regularised and probation was also declared. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to work as Store Keeper in the Engineering Stores of the Institute in addition to his regular duties as Welding Instructor, by issuing proceedings dated 28-2-1985 and that the petitioner has been acting as such from that day onwards. It is submitted that actually there was no sanctioned post ofStore Keeper in the 2nd respondent-institute. Thereafter, on the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the 1st respondent-Devasthanam passed a Resolution on 13-5-3987 creating the post of Store Keeper in the 2nd respondent-institute. Insofar as the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Store Keeper is concerned, it is submitted that the Craft Instructor (Senior) presently working in t...

Union of India, Dept. of Telecommunications, New Delhi and Others Vs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD523

ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the respondents as they were treated to be dealers within the meaning of provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. After show-cause notices, demands were raised for the year 1996-97 against the petitioners on the basis of provisional assessment orders. In respect of petitioners in WP No.25864 of 1997 show-cause notice was issued in proceedings No.9997/96-97/APGST, dated8-8-1997. Assessment order was passed vide Rc.No.9997/96-97/APGST, daied 9-9-1997 and the Demand notice was issued on9-9-1997.2. With respect to petitioners in WP No.11826 of 1997 show-cause notice was issued in proceedings No.9997/96-97/APGST dated 3-2-1997, Provisional Assessment Order was passed in proceedings No.9997/ 96-97/APGST, dated 25-2-1997. The petitioners in this writ petition moved an appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority and they filed a revision and the Additional Commissioner (CT) and Joint Commissioner (I-ega...

Vallabhaneni Subba Rao and Others Vs. Collector, Hyderabad Dist. and O ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD549; 1999(1)ALT435

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioners question the legality of the endorsement dated 4-8-1998 issued by the third respondent herein informing them that the Collector, Hyderabad District, the first respondent herein by his proceedings dated22-10-1997 directed not to register any lands in Sy. No.1 29/67 of Banjara Hills. The said endorsement was issued by the third respondent in reply to the representation dated 3-8-1998 made by the petiiioners requesting the third respondent to inform them whether they can go ahead with the purchase of stamps for registration of sale-deed in favour of Messers Reliance Builders.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased Ac.1.40 cents of land in old Sy. No.129/67 in Banjara Hills from one Koteswara Rao under a registered sale-deed dated 30-9-1969, that their vendor Koteswara Rao purchased a total extent of Ac.5.29 cents in the said survey number including the extent of Ac. 1.40 cents sold to the petitioners herein, under a registere...

B. Nageswara Rao Vs. District Judge, West Godavari and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD254; 1999(1)ALT488

ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. In ATC No. 113 of 1981 filed by respondent No.3 the Court of the Special Officer (Tenancy) and Principal District Munsif, Tanuku passed an order of eviction against the writ petitioner which has been challenged by way of this writ petition. The writ petition came to be heard by a single Judge of this Court on 7th December, 1989. A Division Bench Judgment reported in Raghavaiah v. Rajagopalaswamy Temple, 1987 (1) ALT 400, was passed into service before the learned single Judge who found himself not in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench and thereforehe placed the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. Therefore this Bench was constiluted and in this background the case was heard by this Full Bench.2. The facts reveal that the respondent temple is the owner of a piece of land measuring Ac.4.60 cents in RS No.69 situated in Kothalaparru village. In the auction held on 3rd May, 1972 the writ petitioner was the highest bidder for getting lease ...

C. Ramesh Chander Vs. C.A. Hanumantha Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD258; 1999(1)ALT497

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in IA No. 1271 of 1998 in OS No.508 of 1997 which was filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC praying to permit the defendant to file counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC.2. Defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the revision petitioner for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with his constructions and pending the suit, an interim injunction was also granted in favour of the respondent in June, 1997. Subsequently, the defendant filed his written statement on 4-8-1997 and issues were also framed. While so, on 21-7-1998, the present application is filed by the petitioner contending that under the guise of the said interim injunction, the respondent-plaintiff raised further constructions in the suit premises encroaching into the site of the petitioner and on the basis of this subsequent development, the p...

Gajjela Rajaiah and Another Vs. Sub-collector-cum-land Acquisition Off ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD80; 1999(1)ALT166

ORDER1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 1-10-1998 for 'spot enquiry-cum-survey' and 'Payment of Compensation' as per the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks. The petitioners also seek declaration to the effect that the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioners dated 1-10-1998 on par with petitioners in VP No.26573 of 1997 dated 15-9-1998 as illegal and violative of Articles 4 and 16 of the Constitution of India.Facts in Brief:The petitioners claim to be owners of the land admeasuring an extent of 12-00 acres and 14-00 acres in Sy. Nos.212 and 102 respectively of Nambal village Rebbana Mandal of Adilabad District. It is their case that the said lands were forcibly taken over by the Irrigation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh way-back in the year...