Andhra Pradesh Court September 1998 Judgments

Mahendar Tiwari Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1999AP202

ORDER1. The writ petition is disposed of finally on merits after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondents.2. The petitioner seeks a direction declaring the inaction of the respondents, in particular respondent No.2 in not providing Toll Collection Booth and gate with electricity supply at K.M. 1/4 of Anakapalli By-pass at National Highway (for short 'NH') No.5 and adequate protection for collection of the toll fee there. A further direction is sought that the respondents should not insist upon the payment of any quantum of lease amount from 9-8-1998 onwards till respondents construct the said toll gate and comply the other conditions referred above.3. A Notification No.6957/EE.III/ TA.VI/AEE-12/97 dated 25-4-1998 waspublished by respondent No.2 for calling sealed Tenders for collection of toll amounts. Tims it was a public auction of right to collect the toll. The petitioner was one of the bidders and his ...

theresa Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD184; 1998(6)ALT190

ORDERY.V. Narayana, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 3-10-1994 in LGC No.26 of 1994 on the file of the 1st Respondent and to quash the same.2. The unsuccessful applicant before the Court below is the petitioner herein. It is thecase of the petitioner that she purchased an extent of Ac.12.35 guntas of land in S.No.90 of Gundla Pochampalli village, Medchal Mandal, from one B. Prakash and B. Vedkumar, under a registered sale deed dated 17-3-1972. Subsequently, she sold an extent of Ac.9.35 guntas of land out of the total extent of Ac.12.35 guntas in favour of one C. Radha Krishna Raju and his two brothers under a registered sale deed dated 16-1-1979. The remaining extent of Ac.3.00 of land was in her possession and enjoyment. But, in the year 1987, after noticing that the 2nd respondent and his father were in illegal occupation of the land in question, she filed application under the provisions o...

Revu Durga Prasad Vs. Director General of Police and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD196; 1998(6)ALT29; 1999CriLJ778

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce his wife Smt. Potharaju Venkata Lakshmi Sudha, daughter of P. Sutyanarayana Murthy fourth respondent and release her from unlawful and unjustified detention against her will and a further direction is also sought to Potharaju Venkata lakshmi Sudha to join the society of the petitioner for leading conjugal life.2. According to the petitioner, when he was studying MBA Course at the Indian Institute of Advanced Management at Visakhapatnam during the year 1993-95, he developed intimacy with P. V. Lakshmi Sudha who is the daughter of the fourth respondent and both of them decided to marry against the wishes of the parents. With the support of friends and well-wishers, he married P.V. Lakshmi Sudha, daughter of the fourth respondent oil 30-10-1996 in Lakshminarasimha Swami Temple, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and their marriage has also been registered in the office of t...

Sajana Granites and Others Vs. Sai Enterprises

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD119; 1998(5)ALT552

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Both the revisions are being disposed of by a common order.2. Two applications have been filed before the Trial Court being I.A. No.639 of 1998 and I.A. No.640 of 1998 in OS No.158 of 1992. The application 1A No.639 of 1998 was made seeking direction of the Court for issuance of Summons to Sri K. V. Narsaiah Junior Assistant in M.R.O. Office to mark the statements of T. Vydehi and A. Malathi. This application was opposed by the other side who were the plaintiffs in the suit. They moved an application being IA No.640 of 1998 in which they stated that the Court should not receive the statements of T. Vydehi and A. Malathi. The case which appears to have given rise to this controversy is that the defendant No.2 respondent herein sought to get the statements of four persons on record of the suit which according to him had been made earlier before the Mandal Revenue Officer. One of the statement which is sought to be marked is of T. Vydehi ...

S.L. Reddi Vs. Apsrtc and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD183; 1998(5)ALT634

ORDER1. Rule nisi. Sri K. Harinath, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC took notice for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties.2. I should state at the threshold that this is a totally unjustified petition. By the impugned proceedings dated 18-9-1998 issued by the Assistant Traffic Manager, Imlibun Bus Station, the Petitioner has been given posting and he has been posted to Hyderabad-11 Depot. Before this posting order, the petitioner was serving at Imlibun Bus-Station, which is also very much within Hyderabad City Corporation.3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is vitiated due to the fact that it was issued to appease the rival Union. I do not find any merit in this contention. In the first place, the impugned order cannot be considered to be a transfer order, as that term is understood generally. Transfer of an employee always results in the shiftin...

Terry Gold (India) Limited, Hyd. and Anr. Vs. TCi Finance Limited, Sec ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD831; 1999(1)ALT265

ORDERUMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, C.J. 1. The CMA and CRP are directed against the orders of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The principal grievance, as against the orders pertains to an error of law said to have been committed by the learned Judge. hi this context, the factual aspects ought to be adverted to at this stage. A summary suit under Order 37 CPC was filed by TCI Finance Limited, being the respondent herein against both the petitioners herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.90,83,701/-. Admittedly, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants approached the plaintiff for finance, and having obtained the benefit of the money, issued 60 several post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs. 1,61,700/- each commencing from 8-9-1995 to 8-8-2000 towards payment of lease rentals of the machinery. The defendants have also executed a demand promissory note for a sum of Rs.92,40,000/-. Defendant No.2 is a guarantor. ...

Y.V. Subba Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1999]236ITR932(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are referred at the instance of the assessee while question No. 3 is referred at the instance of the Revenue.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 189 are not applicable in assessing the amount of Rs. 7,46,471 in the hands of the partnership firms ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provisions of Section 176(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the facts of the case ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, while holding that the provisions of Section 176(3A) are applicable, is correct in concluding that the amount of Rs. 7,46,471 cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee-recipient but in the hands...

District Collector and ors. Vs. Yepuri Venkata Rama Rao and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALT270

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge directing the second respondent in the writ petition to pass a supplemental award within three months from the date of receipt of the order fixing the market value of the land acquired from the writ petitioners as on 1st August, 1997 and pay compensation to the writ petitioners accordingly together with all statutory benefits like solatium, additional compensation and interest. The learned single Judge followed the decision of another learned single Judge reported in M. Hanumanna v. District Collector, Anantapur : 1993(1)ALT744 . having more or less similar directions contained therein. Due reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Johri AIR 1992 SC 1538. wherein the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph 4 of the report as under:'4. It is the admitted case before us that the undisputed huge pat...

Asra India Vs. Dr. Gaddam Ashok

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served on the respondent neither he is present nor there is any representation on his behalf. 2. This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in O.P. No. 756/1997 questioning the order of the Nellore District Forum dated 4.5.1998 directing it to pay Rs. 20,000/- together with interest at 30% per annum from March, 1997 till the date of payment and also costs of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant in that opposite party is the respondent before us. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the appellant on 18.4.1995 and the date of maturity of that deposit was 18.5.1997 and the appellant agreed to pay interest on the said sum at 30% per annum upto the date of maturity. It had also imposed a condition that after the date of maturity no interest would be paid. However it retained the amount on the ground th...

Lanka Satyanarayana Vs. General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Fe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD300

ORDER1. The petitioner was selected in the year 1979 by the Fertiliser Corporation of India Limited, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a caste certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1971, declaring him to be a Scheduled Tribe. It appears that due to some personal disputes between the petitioner and his brother-in-law one Dr. K. Nageswara Rao, who sent representations to the employer of the petitioner and the employer of the petitioner's brother, alleging that the petitioner and his brother do not belong to Scheduled Tribe and they have obtained false certificates for the purpose of securing the job. On receipt of such complaints, the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Hyderabad, conducted an enquiry and came to a conclusion that the Petitioner's family did not belong to 'Konda Kapu' community and hence they do not belong to Scheduled Tribe...