Andhra Pradesh Court August 1998 Judgments

District Collector/Chairman Dist. Scheduled Caste Service Co-op. Socie ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD74; 1999(1)ALT173

ORDER1. These applications arise out of an order in CC No.866 of 1997 in WP No.2070 of 1996, wherein the respondents-authorities were admonished by this Court for causing delay in passing of the order in spite of the direction to pass orders within two weeks.2. The brief facts leading to the present review applications are that the respondent herein-writ petitioner filed WP No.2070 of 1996 seeking a direction to the petitioners here in-respondents authorities in the writ petition to regularise his services in the respondents-Society. This Court by an order dated 7-2-1996 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 and pass appropriate orders within two months (sic. weeks) from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, in spite of specific directions of this Court, it was complained in CC No.866 of 1997, that no orders were passed...

Vempati Balaji and Others Vs. D. Vijaya Gopala Reddi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD669; 1999(2)ALT125; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)93

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr, Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. This is an application filed tinder Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings in CC No. 8 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet. The issue raised in this petition is not res Integra. This Court had an occasion to consider the very question in Uplanche Mallikarjun v. Ratkanti Vimala, 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 342 = 1997 (2) APLJ 389, and this Court held as follows :'5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner met the complainant and requested to become a member of the said Marriage Trust and then she believed their version and became a member and completed all the formalities by paying the amount as directed and the petitioners herein issued a cheque on 30-6-1996 for Rs.30,000/-and the same was dishonoured and hence they are liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. 6. There is no disput...

Shahebzadi Mallika Jehan Begum and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of H ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD79

1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land bearing Municipal No.5-9-29/3/10, situated in Sy.No.207 (Old) of Basheerbagh admeasuring 2,300 sq. yards, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners of the land to an extent of 2,300 sq. yards situated at Municipal No. 5-9-29/3/10, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The said property was part and parcel of Basheerbagh Palace and appertunent land totally admeasuring Ac.21-09 gts. originally belonged to Nawab Moin-ud-doula Bahadur, Amir-e-Paigah. Subsequently, Mr. Zaheer-Yar Jung Bahadur became custodian of the said property in pursuance of the judgment and decree in CS No.7/1958 on the life of this Court. During the life time of Moin-ud-doula Bahadur, the father of the petitioners wa...

Ch. Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Sri Seetharama Swamy Prabhuvu Varu, K ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD27; 1998(5)ALT98

ORDER1. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions and certain others totalling 88persons claimed grant of ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (Andhra Pradesh Regulation 2 of 1970), for short 'Regulation 2 of 1970, before the Settlement Officer Unit No.1, Bhadrachalam, Khammam district who is arrayed as respondent No.4 to the writ petitions. Their claims are rejected by the fourth respondent. Being aggrieved by the orders of the fourth respondent, the petitioners and others preferred appeals to the Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad (the third respondent) under Section 9(3) of Regulation 2 of 1970. The third respondent by his common order dated 17-7-1992 dismissed the appeals. The petitioners and others preferred second appeals to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (the second respondent) and those appeals are also dismiss...

Abc India Limited Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD399

ORDER1. The amount of Court fee payable is in issue in this C.R.P. A suit for injunction was sought to be filed in the Court of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. The Government of Andhra Pradeshand the Canara Bank, Guwahati Branch are the defendants in the suit. Permanent injunction against encashing and/or payment of any money under and in pursuance of bank guarantee Nos.9/94, 10/94 and 11/94 furnished by the second defendant-Bank at the instance of the petitioner, is the relief sought for in the plaint. It is not in dispute that the total amount for which the bank guarantees were furnished in connection with the execution of contract is Rs.32,82,350/-. The plaint was returned with an objection that the pecuniary value of the suit being Rs.32,82,350/-, the Court fee should be paid on that amount and the plaint must be presented in the Court having jurisdiction. It may be mentioned that the Court of Senior Civil Judge has pecuniary jurisdiction only upto Rs. Five lakhs. C...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada Vs. New Srinivasa Construction ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD520; [1999]236ITR503(AP)

ORDER--No attempt by revenue to show that entire assessment order had not mergedRatio:In view of the merger of the entire order of the assessing officer for the assessment year in appeal revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be exercised.Held:Entire order of the assessing authority has fallen for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, as such, the entire order of the assessing authority has merged with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). That being the finding of fact, no referable questions of law are available for the revenue to seek further opinion from this court. Application:Also to current assessment yearA.Y.:1987-88Dt.Judg.:5-8-1998Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ...

Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. B. Jayaprakash Gupta and A ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. F.A. I. A. No. 720/1997 is for condoning the delay of 99 days in presenting the F.A. S.R. No. 1619/ 1997 questioning the order of the Chittoor District Forum dated 25.2.1997 allowing the complaint CDC No. 152/1995 preferred by the first respondent before us and directing them jointly and severally to pay Rs. 77, 132.33 ps. and also to pay Rs. 500/- towards costs to the first respondent/complainant. In the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay the reason for the delay is stated as follows : I submit that the order dated 25.2.1997 was despatched on 3.3.1997 and the same was received by the Corporation on 4.3.1997. The Depot Manager, Madanapalli vide his letter No. 03/785(12)/95-MPL-I dated 12.3.1997 has sent the copy of the order of the District Forum and the case file to the Head Office to file an appeal against the order. The Law Department has sent the file to our Standing Counsel on 26.3.1997 for his opinion and drafting the ca...

M/S. Micronet Technologies Vs. M/S. Vagdevi Graphics and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The appellant before us was the 1st opposite party in O.P. No. 184/1996. He questions the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum dated 16.5.1998 in O.P. No. 184/1996 allowing the said O.P. in part and directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e., the appellant and the 2nd respondent in the appeal, to pay Rs. 1,04,000/- to the complainant i.e., the 1st respondent in the appeal, with interest @ 15% per annum from 2.8.1995 till the date of payment and also further sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs and Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation. 2. The complainant approached the District Forum for redress alleging that the appellant undertook to procure and instal a DTP unit consisting of a laser printer system and software to enable her to do independent printing business to eke out her livelihood, she being a divorcee. According to her, the main unit for her printing purposes was the laser printer attached to the DTP unit which was recommended to her by the appellan...