Andhra Pradesh Court June 1998 Judgments

K. Prasad Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Ot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD645; 1999(4)ALT765

ORDER1. The petitioner while serving as driver in the establishment of the APSRTC departmental enquiry was initiated under the APSRTC CCA Regulations. The Depot Manager, Badvvel Depot who is the disciplinary authority under the regulations finding the petitioner guilty of the charge, imposed penalty and directed that 'annual increments when next falls due be deferred for a period of two years which shall have effect of postponing future increments.' It is needless to state that the punishment imposed on the delinquent is a major penalty. There is no controversy between the parties that this penalty came to be imposed on the petitioner-delinquent without holding a regular departmental enquiry envisaged under the APSRTC CCA Regulations. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 17-1-1989 preferred an appeal on 3-9-1991 to the 3rd respondent-the appellate authority. The 3rd respondent-appellate authority dismissed the appeal by his proceedings dated 2...

Alhari Narayana Swamy Vs. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak R ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD370; 1998(4)ALT286

ORDER1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Swamy Temple situate at Manyamkonda, Mahabubnagar District. It is stated at the time of hearing by the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments that Trust Board in respect of the temple is not yet constituted. The Executive Officer of the temple who is arrayedas the 4th respondent to the writ petition has been operating the bank accounts of the temple. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Executive Officer of the temple by himself, refusing to continue the earlier practice of the bank accounts of the temple being operated jointly by the petitioner and the Executive Officer as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the Executive Officer to continue the operation of the bank accounts of the temple jointly by the petitioner and himself.2. The relevant provisions of subsec...

P. Rajaiah Vs. Veera Shaiva Vidyavardhak Sangh, Yadgir

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD443; 1998(4)ALT275

ORDER1. This revision is filed by the tenant questioning the orders of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 4-10-1996 in R.A.No.66/94 which was filed questioning the order of the I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 1-2-1994 in R.C.No. 233/86 filed by the landlord.2. The respondent herein had filed R.C.No. 233/86 against the tenant who is the present petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the specific period and also wilful default in payment of the property tax due to be paid to the Municipality as per the rental agreement executed between the parties. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by orders dated 1-2-1994 having come to the conclusion that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and also wilful default in payment of the property tax due to be paid to the Municipality; whereupon the tenant filed R.A.No.66 of 1994 before the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, ...

Kanakadurga Binny Rice Mill, Rajampet, Warangal District Vs. State of ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD523; 1998(4)ALT641

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. This Special Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 8-4-1996 in CCT's Rcf.No.L.III(3)/878/93, which was received by the assessee on 17-5-1996.2. The grievance of the assessee seems to be that for the assessment year 1989-90 the Assessing Authority i.e.. Commercial Tax Officer, Narasampet, completed assessment levying 2% tax on the purchase value of paddy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.606 dated 9-4-1981. The assessee is a rice mill and it is located in the scheduled area of Warangal District. According to the assessee, levying of 2% taxes on the purchase value of paddy is improper and it is entitled to certain benefits given to such type of assessees in the scheduled areas.3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the matter was carried in appeal under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Warangal on the ground that the rele...

Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Vs. R. Nagaraju

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD534; 1998(4)ALT431

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition with a further direction to the appellant-Corporation herein to consider payment of gratuity to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 4 of the A.P.State Warehousing Corporation Employees Gratuity Fund Regulations, 1974, The learned single Judge further directed that such consideration for payment, as above, be effected within a period of four(04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Be it recorded that the learned single Judge has also directed payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/-.2. It is now a well settled principle of law that gratuity cannot be termed to be a gratuitous payment - it is not a gift of the employer but a right as conferred in terms of the provisions of the statute.3. The learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal contended that the Government order ought to be the basics for the purpose of payment of gratuity ...

Jamunabai and anr. Vs. Sharadabai and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD655; 1998(4)ALT676

1. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the VIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No. 1110/81, decreeing the suit in part.2. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of A-Schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of B-Schedule property, and for damages for the use and illegal occupation of plaint-A Schedule portion. The suit was decreed except for the relief of awarding damages. The facts, in brief, are as follows:3. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. Sharbati Bai was married to one Ganesh Lal, who had four sons viz., Brijmohan, Shambudayal Gupta, Jagadish Pershad and Omprakash Gupta.Ganesh Lal died in 1973 leaving his widow Sharbati Bai and his sons.4. Sharbati Bai and Ganesh Lal along with his four sons constituted Hindu Joint Family. Brijmohan, married 1st defendant. His son is the 2nd...

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Lotavath Miryali

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The policy bearing No. 644003867 dated 28.3.1991 under which the husband of the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- is not disputed. It is also the accepted case of the appellant Insurance Company that no premia were due by the time the insured died on 14.10.1993. The complainant was the nominee and that is also not disputed. She laid claim on 15.11.1993 and me claim forms admittedly were presented on 22.3.1994. As there was no response for six months after the claim was laid the complainant approached the Nalgonda District Forum by her present complaint on 18.5.1994. On 19.5.1994, on behalf of the Insurance Company the Counsel for the complainant was informed that some more time would be required for taking a decision. Counter was filed on 27.7.1994. Even by that date the claim of the complainant was not repudiated. The contentions raised in the counter are all very frivolous - like (1) the complaina...

G. Bhagyalaxmi Vs. A.V. Subbarathnamma and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any ground or basis for interfering with the order of the Cuddapah District Forum dated 26.8.1997m O.P. No. 419/1996 questioned in this appeal by the 9th opposite party in that O.P. The learned Counsel for the appellant says that the fact of the complainant i.e. the 1st respondent in this appeal, depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with Kamadhenu Financiers under general receipt No. 604 dated 28.2.1992 (marked as Ex. A-l) is not in dispute. 2. The contentions raised before the District Forum were: (i) that the partnership firm itself was not made a party; (ii) that the complaint was barred by time; (iii) that there was no service involved because only a deposit was made and repayment of the deposit was claimed; (iv) that the appellant was only an employee and not a partner of Kamadhenu Financiers; and finally (v) that the Cuddapah District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. 3. All these contentions were elaborately and comprehensively cons...

Peela Pothi Naidu Vs. State of Pradesh and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD170; 1999(4)ALT161

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Inwhat is called as Yeleru Scam, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had appointed the Commission first headed by Justice S.R Nayak, a sitting Judge of this Court by G.O. Ms. No.83, Revenue Department, dated 5-2-1997. As Justice S.R. Nayak had resigned, the Government had reconstituted the Commission with Justice B.K. Somasekhara vide G.O. Ms. No.468, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 2-6-1997.2. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Visakhapatnam and had appeared in land acquisition cases pertaining to which the above Commission was constituted. He has questioned the said Constitution of the Commission. Firstly, he had moved the Supreme Court by filing WP(Crl.) 99 of 1998, but it is stated that the Supreme Court had opined that the petitioner had to first approach this Court and as such, the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition and by order dated 15-5-1998, the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn observing 'leaving it open to t...

D. Gopal Krishan Rao and Others Vs. District Collector, Government of ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD187; 1998(3)ALT791

ORDER1. The facts in each of these ten writ petitions are substantially similar, and the question which falls for decision is also common. Therefore, all these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together, and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The private respondents in each of the writ petitions claim to be tribals and owners and occupiers of certain lands which are the subject matters of these writ petitions and situate in the Agency tracts of Adilabad District. The petitioners also claim to be the owners and occupiers of the same lands. Thus, there is a serious title dispute between the petitioners and the contesting private respondents over the lands. When the matters stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradcsh initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the Act', to acquire these lands for the public purpose, for submergence under the Vatti-Vagu Project by issuing Section 4(1) Notification and invoking the spe...