Andhra Pradesh Court February 1998 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.
Dr. N. Anil Krishna Vs. Principal (Day) Vivek Vardhani College of Arts ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD434; 1998(3)ALT380
ORDER1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and hence, I am disposing of by this common order.2. Writ PetitionNo.20115/1996 is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the aided post of Lecturer in English in Vivek Vardhani College of Arts, Commerce and Science (Day and Evening), Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal, and for a further direction for appointing the petitioner in one of the posts, either in the Day College or in the Evening College. The petitioner is Dr. N. Anil Krishna. The other writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.3078of l997 is filed by one G.Aruna for a declaration that the impugned proceedings DD's No.3856/PC.III-1/96 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, in so far it relates to the appointment of 4th respondent as Lecturer in English, in the 3rd respondent college, as illegal and arbitrary. She also prayed for a further direction to the management to consider her case for appoint...
Vadde Rajeswaramma Vs. Dr. V.L. Narasimha Charyulu and ors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD402; 1998(2)ALT243
ORDER1. A very short but an important controversy needs to be decided in this revision. It appears that in a suit pending before the Trial Court a Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report to the Court-Objections were filed against the report. One of me parties who are the petitioners at present filed an application before the learned Trial Court after the report was filed by the Commissioner, seeking permission to cross examine the Commissioner. This application has been rejected and a revision has been filed in this Court2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The question that needs to be decided by this Court is, whether a party to the suit has a right to get a Commissioner examined with regard to his report, or not. Order-XXVI Rule-9 & 10 are relevant for the purpose of this controversy.Rule-9 lays down;-'9. In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or ...
K. Sukhender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD430; 1998(3)ALT260
ORDERA. Hanumanthu, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner K. Sukhender Reddy, a conferred Member of the I.A.S. in the State of Andhra Pradesh Cadre, questioning the order dated 23-6-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch in O. A.No.640/97 on its file.2. Anakapalle Town Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.327/96 against an Advocate by name Pothi Naidu and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 469, 420 r/w. Section 120B IPC. This case is popularly known as 'YeleruScam'. The C.I.D. took up investigation in the said case. The offences mentioned in the said crime were committed prior to 1996 and the petitioner herein was working as the Joint. Secretary to the Government of A.P. at the relevant time., in Irrigation and Command Area Development Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. The investigation by the C.I.D. revealed that the petitioner Sukhender Reddy played a crucial role through series of acts of commissions and omi...
A.P.S.R.T.C, and Another Vs. P.T. Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD45; 1998(2)ALT447
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. ThisWrit Appeal is directed at the instance of the appellants - APSRTC against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No. 6133 of 1990 dated 25-3-1997.2. The Writ Petition was filed by the employees of the Corporation seeking a direction to the Corporation to regularise the services of the writ petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. The learned single Judge disposed of the above said writ petition filed by the employees of theCorporation with a direction that the rcgularisation of services of the petitioners shall be considered keeping in view of the directions granted by this Court in Writ Appeal No.705 of 1995.3. Sri C. V. Ramulu, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Corporation submits that an employee is entitled to seek regularisation of his services provided a clear vacancy was available as on that date and if such clear vacancy exists, he would be appointed in such regular vacancy. It is fairly submitted that ...
Apsrtc, Musheerabad and anr. Vs. Akkewsara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD95; 1998(3)ALT636; (1999)ILLJ548AP
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. ThisWrit Appeal is directed at the instance of the appellants-APSRTC against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.16713 of 1990 dated 7-4-1997.2. The writ Petition was filed by theemployees of the Corporation seeking a direction to the Corporation to regularise the services of the writ petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. The learned single Judge disposed of the above said writ petition filed by the employees of the Corporation with a direction that the regularisation of services of the petitioners shall be considered keeping in view of the directions granted by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995.3. Sri C. V.Ramulu, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Corporation submits that an employes is entitled to seek regularisation of his services provided a clear vacancy was available as on that date and if such clear vacancy exists, he would be appointed in such regular vacancy. It is fairly submitted that the ...
Smt. Vadda Rajeswaramma Vs. Dr. V.L. Narasimha Charyulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998AP202
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. A very short but an important controversy needs to be decided in this revision. It appears that in a suit pending before the Trial Court a Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report to the Court. Objections were filed against the report. One of the parties who are the petitioners at present filed an application before the learned Trial Court after the report was filed by the Commissioner, seeking permission to cross-examine the Commissioner. This application has been rejected and a revision has been filed in this Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The question that needs to be decided by this Court is, whether a party to the suit has right to get a Commissioner examined with regard to his report, or not. Order XXVI, Rules 9 & 10 are relevant for the purpose of this controversy. Rule 9 lays down :--'9. In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any m...
Leprosy Mission and anr. Vs. Nallamilli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998AP285; 1998(2)ALT137
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the defendants in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit -- O. S. No. 43 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge. Ramachandrapuram, for specific performance of an agreement for sale. He also filed I.A. No. 532 of 1996 for temporary injunction pending the suit.The appellants also filed another I. A. No. 493/97 for appointment of Receiver. The lower Court allowed I.A. No. 532/96, while dismissing I.A. No. 493/96. Hence, the unsuccessful defendants filed these two appeals. As the lower Court has disposed of both the applications under a common order, we oo dispose of both the appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Appellants Nos. I and 2 are the Leprosy Mission, New Delhi, and a branch of the Mission situated at Ramachandrapuram respectively. The Mission offered to dispose an extent of Ac 3.50 cents approximately belonging to it and for that purpose a publication was made in local news papers on 11-6-1995...
M/S. Electro Flame Ltd. Vs. M/S. Mittal Iron Foundry Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD594; 1998(3)ALT252; [1998]93CompCas420(AP)
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge admitting the Company Petition filed by the respondent -petitioner under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. The only defence raised before the learned single Judge is the plea of limitation. There cannot possibly be any doubt that the plea of limitation would be a substantial defence in an application for winding up provided, however, it has its sustenance from the factual score. 2. On the wake of the aforesaid, let us advert to the factual aspect of the matter briefly at this juncture : Admittedly, the respondent - Company had supplied C.I. castings, fan body, bottom covers etc., to the appellant - Company in the month of August, 1992 under two separate bills i.e., for Rs.98,268.77 ps. and Rs.l,32,939.46 ps., totalling Rs.2,31,298.23 ps. The petitionerbefore the learned single Judge did serve a legal notice on 3-08-1995 and thereafter a statutory notice under Section 434 of ...
Girish K. Bhandari and Another Vs. Lakshmi Finance and Industrial Corp ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD200; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)460; [1999]97CompCas92(AP)
ORDER1. It appears that a complaint has been filed against the present petitioners along with another accused under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The prosecution is being challenged by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC solely on the ground that there are no offences disclosed against the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 and 4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is not sufficient to be a Director of a Company for having vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act but such Director should be involved in day to day business before any liability can be fastened on him, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He relies on ajudgment of this Court reported in Secunderabad Health Care v. Secunderabad Hospital, 1998 (2) ALD (CH.) 206. This judgment is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court being State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal, 1998 (4) Supreme 364.2. Before appreciating...
Amar Traders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (intellige ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC265(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Amar Traders, Bidar, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in detaining the goods as illegal and arbitrary and to direct him to release the balance of consignment of 58 bags of Sagar brand gutka.2. The facts in brief are :The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'KST Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of gutka, pan masala, zarda, supari and cigarettes. For the purpose of its business, it has purchased Sagar brand gutka from R.K. Products, Kanpur on credit basis in September, 1997 and received consignment at Bidar. The goods were sold during October, 1997 and he is paying tax under the KST Act which is due by November 20, 1997. He purchased further 116 bags from the said seller at Kanpur which were despatched vide sale bills and LRs. dated September 26, 1997, September 27, 1997, September 29, 1997 and September 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »