Andhra Pradesh Court March 1998 Judgments

Y. Narayana Murthy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD85; 1998(3)ALT829

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. V. DurgaPrasad.2. Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are real brothers of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed declaration in LCC No. 1146/ELR/75 under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms Act on behalf of his family unit consisting of himself, his wife, a minor son and a minor daughter. The Primary Tribunal by its order dated 15-11-1976 determined the holding of Respondent No.2 and held that he holds an extent of land equivalent to 0.2914 and later under order dated 18-12-1978 to 0.2800 S.H., in excess of the ceiling area. This holding was arrived at in the light of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA No.593/77, dated 4-12-1978.3. Against the said order, Respondent No.2 filed a revision before this Court in CRP No.5499/1979 but the same was dismissed on 4-3-1980 and the order of the lower Tribunal was confirmed. The Land Reforms Tribunal after issuing Form ...

Paladugu Manikyala Rao Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD317; 1998(4)ALT388

ORDER1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.A.No.82/97 in I.D.No.76/96 dated 30-8-1997. In the said application, the petitioner prayed for the relief of stay of eviction of the petitioner From Quarter No. 1, Laxminagar Employees Colony, Vuyyuru. The petitioner's services were terminated by the second respondent-Management. Thereafter the second respondent-Management issued necessary notice directing the petitioner herein to vacate the quarter in his possession and on his refusal, the second respondent-Management filed S.T.C.No.89/96 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannayaram. It is stated that the petitioner filed a claim petition for over-time wages in MP.No.91/96. The said miscellaneous petition also is stated to be pending.2. It is the case of the second respondent-management that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned the job through his letter dated 22-5-1995. There is no need to express any o...

Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and Other Vs. C.V. Reddi

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD204; 1999(1)ALT140

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ 1. The appeal is directed against setting aside an order of transfer of the writ petitioner issued by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.2. The contextual facts reveal that the writ petitioner was transferred from Cuddapah to Anantapur and the same was assailed before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge while dealing with the matter, placed very strong reliance on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Road Transport Corporation. For convenience sake, the said paragraph 4 is set out hereunder:'I submit that the 1st respondent received a complaint on 18-9-1997 from Security staff, Zonal Workshop, Cuddapah against Alexander SASI and Sri C. Venkat Reddy SHG regarding the allegation of theft of materials/pilferage of scrap items/tyres and allowing the scrap dealers to take serviceable materials and accepting bribes from the successful bidders. Based on the complaint, the third respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry into t...

S. Vijayalaxmi Vs. S. Bheemreddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD724; 1998(2)ALT338; II(1998)DMC407

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree in O.P.No.139 of 1995 dated 9-9-1996 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.2. Wife is the appellant before us. The husband who is the respondent herein has originally filed O.P.No.245 of 1994 on the file of the n Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Judge, Family Court and re-numbered as O.P.No.139 of 1995, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife seeking dissolution of their marriage on the grounds of cruelly and desertion by the wife.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'petitioner-husband' and 'respondent-wife'. The O.P. is instituted by the petitioner-husband on the following allegations :According to the petitioner-husband, their marriage took place on 25-5-1989 according to Hindu Custom and Law. From the beginning, the respondent-wife had no liking for the petitioner-husband and had...

Syed Abdur Razzack Vs. Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyde ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD789; 1998(3)ALT247

ORDER1. The petitioner was working initially as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) and Inspector-Auditor in the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as Board). The seniority list of UD.Cs. was published and communicated in 1984 by proceedings No.El/134/84 dated 27-9-1984 wherein the petitioner was shown at serial No.l while the Respondents 2 to 4 were far below at serial Nos. 14,33 and 35 respectively. In 1979 the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent, Accounts Section by the Board vice Sri MA Raoof 'who had retired, The petitioner himself declined the promotion on the ground that he was required to continue at Kumool in view of the illness of his mother. He therefore refused the said promotion. Later on, he was transferred to Hyderabad in the office of the first respondent The petitioner was thus eligible for promotion and in fact the promotion given lo him in 1979 showed that he was qualified also. The petitioner submits that after he came lo Hyderabad he was not c...

P. Usha Radhey Mohan Vs. M.V. Ramu and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(3)ALD268; 1998(3)ALT42

ORDERUmesh Chandra Bannerjee, C.J.1. Since the decision in Dhingra's case (Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India) AIR 1958 SC 36 the law as regards the confirmation of a probationer stands settled. The Supreme Court in Dhingra's case observed:'Shortly put, the principle is that when a servant has right to a post or to a rank either under the terms of the contract of employment express or implied, or under the rules governing the conditions of his service, the termination of the service of such a servant or his reduction to a lower post is by itself and prima facie a punishment, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post or that rank and to get the emoluments and other benefits attached thereto. But if the servant has no right to the post, as where he is appointed to a post, permanent or temporary either on probation or on an officiating basis and whose temporary service has not ripened into a quasi permanent service as defined in the Temporary Service Rules, the t...

Union of India and Another Vs. Sri Adusumilli Srinivasa Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. In this appeal the opposite parties in CC. No. 151/1990 i.e. Union of India and The Telecom District Engineer, Visakhapatnam, have questioned the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum dated 18.12.1997 inthat case. The respondent in the appeal was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant was provided with telephone bearing No. 57268 at Visakhapatnam. He was issued bill dated 1.4.1989 for Rs. 4,555/-. He raised a dispute in respect of that bill before the Telephone Department on the ground that it was exorbitant. It is his case that the telephones in and around Visakhapatnam underwent big infrastructural changes due to re- constitution of exchanges including commissioning of new electronic exchanges, and that during that period the telephone numbers were altered and some telephones were kept in abeyance and some others were rendered non- functional for days together. The complainant suspected excess billing due to tampering of the t...

C.i.T., Vijayawada Vs. Sri Vijayalakshmi Mineral and Trading Co., Madr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(3)ALD547a; [1998]232ITR243(AP)

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J 1. This application is filed under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act) at the instance of the Revenue. 2. The assessee firm was dealing in mining of Barytes and exports the same and sells the Barytes within the country. The assessee filed return of Income for the assessment year 1987-88 belatedly under Section 139(10) of the Act. The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1988-89 on 29.7.1988 declaring loss of Rs.4,75,879/-and on 3.8.89 the assessee filed revised returns declaring loss of Rs.7,41,330/-, while completing the assessment the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee for carrying forward the depreciation relating to the assessment year 1987-88 on the ground that the returns for the assessment year 1987-88 was a non-est. Therefore, the depreciation allowance for 1987-88 has not been quantified. Aggrieved by the assessment order assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the...

State Bank of India Vs. Ram Das and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD548; 1998(3)ALT67

ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These cases arise out of an Award passed on 8-8-1984 by the Umpire in the Arbitration proceedings. CM A No. 1805 of 1994 is filed by the State Bank of India and directed against the judgment in OP No.76/85 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed under Sections 30 and 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the Award dated 8-8-1984. CRP No.5283/94 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-4-1993 passed in OP No968/93 making the Award Rule of the Court CRP No.5367/94 is directed against the judgment and decree in OSNo.191/85. The said suit is filed by the Umpire to issue notices to the parties to the arbitration proceedings and for making the Award dated 8-8-1984 passed by the Umpire Rule of the Court. All the matters were disposed of by the learned trial Judge by a common judgment under challenge.2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as the petitioner and respondents, as arr...

Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. D. Siva Prasad and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD699; 1998(2)ALT542

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J1. The facts and law involved in W. A.No.501/96 and W.P.No.9819/96 are common and as such they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Appeal 501/96 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 26-4-1996 in W.P.No. 9590/96 filed by om D.Siva Prasad. W.P.No.9819/96 is filed by one D.Siva Prasad challenging the appointment of one Mr.D. V.I..N.Murthy as Member (Administrative) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Thus both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner.3. For purpose of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred as in W.P. No.9590/96. W.P.No.9590/96 was filed on 6-5-1996. The respondents in W.P.No.9590/96 are (1) Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary, Hyderabad (2nd respondent in W.P.No.9819/96), (2) Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensio...