Andhra Pradesh Court September 1998 Judgments

Kondadasu Ranga Rao Vs. Batchu Naga Venkata Satyanarayana

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD532; 1998(6)ALT485

1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 15-11-1989 passed in AS No.25 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudivada, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 8-9-1983 passed in OS No.112 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada in Krishna District.2. The appellant herein is the first defendant and the respondent herein is theplaintiff in the said suit OS No.112 of 1982. The parties are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction and for delivery of possession of the suit building bearing Door Number 3/114 situated in Gudlavalleru village along with the adjacent open site, for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the said building. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant took the suit building on lease from the plaintiff on 1-7-1977 for a period of 11 months for the purpose of running a shoe shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- apart f...

B.N.K. JaIn Vs. Labour Court, Hyderabad and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD149

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the Award of the LabourCourt upholding the order passed by the 2nd respondent discharging him from service.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:The petitioner was employed as Master Technical Assistant in the establishment of the 2nd respondent. On 4-7-1986 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner containing a charge that he has stolen two numbers of vernier calipers belonging to BDL., and on 2-7-1986 he handed over the same to Sri Mehtab Roy after taking them out from the locker at about 17-20 hours at Dabba Canteen with a view to commit theft. A similar charge-sheet was also issued to the said Mehtab Roy, The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 7-7-1986 denying the said charge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 6-8-1986 holding that the charge of theft is not proved. He, however, gave a finding that the petitioner was f...

Ganne Venkata Narayana Prasad Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD305

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This writ petition is filed to declare the demand of full amount payable by the petitioner in respect of collection of toll tax on the bridge Keesra in Krishna district on the national highway No.9 as arbitrary and illegal and to consider the representation filed by the petitioner forremission of the lease amount in respect of contract of collection of toll tax on the Bridge Keesra on national highway No.9 in Krishna district and for other reliefs.2. The petitioner was awarded the contract for collection of toll tax on the bridge across the river Muniyeru near Keesra village in Krishna district for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1997 for an amount of Rs.2,15,00,000/-. The toll gate was handed over to the petitioner on 20-4-1995. The national highway Nos.5 to 9 covers the route. On this route there is a bridge known as Prakasam barrage. This is the main link between the two national highways. The entire traffic from Madras side pass through this bridge to go to...

Karanna V.R. Vs. Om Prakash G.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALT63; 1999CriLJ551; (1999)ILLJ843AP

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. Observance of obedience to an order of Court is the rule of law and any disobedience shown to the order of the Court is to be taken with utmost seriousness since Law-Courts would not permit compliance with the directions of the Law-Courts in its breach rather than in its observance. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has conferred on the Law-Courts the power to punish an offender in the event there is a violation of the mandate of the Court, the majesty of the Court and the orders of the Court shall have to be observed in no uncertain terms. While it is true that the power is absolute, but some amount of self-restraint ought to be imposed on the Law-Courts itself by reason of the user of the language 'wilful disobedience'. The word 'wilful' has a special significance and connotation. In common English parlance, it means a deliberate violation or a deliberate disobedience and it is only then and in that event the Law Courts are authorised to deal with the s...

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Usha Breco Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2001]121STC621(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in T.A. No. 577 of 1995 dated February 26, 1998.2. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent was engaged in the execution of works contract at project site of the contractee, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board at Vijayawada Thermal Power Station (VTPS). It was not registered as local dealer. Assessment has arisen out of information gathered from the record of VTPS from their purchase order dated February 1, 1988 raised on the respondent for Rs. 2,44,52,299. The name of the equipment and work was indicated as 'Fire Protection System'. According to the C.T.O., subsequent to the 46th Amendment of the Constitution and consequent amendment to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the turnover involving execution of works contract ought to be treated as general goods. Therefore, he brought the entire turnover of Rs. 2,44,52,299 to t...

Agent, S.R.M.T. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.P. Mallikarjuna Goud

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties in O.P. No. 270/1994 questioning the order of the Anantapur District Forum dated 7.4.1998. The complainant before the District Forum is the respondent before us. The respondent was served with notice on 3.8.1998. He is not present and there is no appearance on his behalf. He is called absent. The record of the District Forum is before us and we have perused the same. 2. We find that the District Forum, without discussion and without any consideration of the material on record, accepted whatever the complainant stated in an abrupt manner as follows: We are agreeing with the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner shall be entitled for compensation as damage caused to Almirah and damage caused to the Fridge and to the compressor the same was opened and noticed athome. Therefore, we cant appreciate the contention of the respondent that the damage which is not noted at the time of the delivery of t...

A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union Vs. Director of Health, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD622; 1998(5)ALT320

ORDER1. The petitioner, A.P. Public Health & Medical Employees Union affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) is a Union of the employees serving in the Department of Health and Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh registered under the Trade Unions Act, and it is one of the unions existing in the Department of Health and Medical Education. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Union has sought for a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not allowing the petitioner to negotiate with regard to the conditions of service and other grievances of the members of the petitioner-Union as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner-Union to participate in the negotiations along with other registered Trade Unions with regard to the conditions of service of the employees working under respondents 1 and...

Srinivasan Vs. Hon'ble Upa Lokayukta of A.P. and Anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD289; 1998(5)ALT621

ORDERMOTILAL B. NAIK, J 1. The writ of Prohibition or any other writ or order directing the first respondent not to proceed further with investigation into the Complaint No.747 of 1993 is sought from this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner he retired as Joint Director, Agricultural Department on 31-5-1993. On the basis of the complaint made by the second respondent to the first respondent on 4-3-1993, the first respondent issued notice in Form No.VlI requiring the petitioner to submit his reply to the notice issued in Form No.VII. Petitioner has submitted reply to the first respondent on 8-11-1994 and 11-11-1994.3. In the reply filed by the petitioner, two principal objections were raised by him. The one being that since he has retired from service, no proceedings could be initiated against him and the second being that the allegation on which the present enquiry is sought to be m...

Eddu Mallaiah and Others Vs. Eddu Balaiah and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD121; 1998(5)ALT460

ORDERRAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J 1. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in OS No.327 of 1983 which was filed in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, R.R. District at Saroomagar. The respondents herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and for accounts and also for separate possession of suit properties. Both the parties led evidence in the suit and the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 with costs allotting the plaintiff No. 1 one-third share in S.Nos.258, 266, 272 and 273 and the house situated at Chandanagar village. Defendants No. 1 and 4 were also allotted one-third share each in the said suit lands and the house. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants in the suit carried the matter in appeal to the High Court by filing AS No. 129 of 1989 which was decided by the learned single Judge of this Court who allowed the appeal in the following terms: '(1) The...

Air Officer Commanding-in-chief Vs. Cpl Baliya Sp

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD292; 1998(6)ALT143

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ 1. By the reason of the involvement of someserious questions, wherein one personnel of the disciplined force is involved, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the appeal from an Interlocutory order along with the writ petition.2. It is however placed on record that in the normal circumstances this Court does not deem it fit and expedient to entertain an appeal from an Interlocutory order, but by reason of the factum of involvement of the issue as above this Court deemed it expedient to dispose both matters together.3. The records depict that out of twenty (20) HPT-32 aircraft* on strength, fifteen (15) were offered for flying on 25-3-1994. The records further depict that in addition to the' strength of fifteen, one additional aircraft was inducted from R & SS directly. It appears further tliat of the sixteen (16) aircrafts at about 0600 hours on 25-3-1994 in fourteen (14) HPT-32 aircrafts snags started appearing and all the fourteen (14) snags appeare...