Andhra Pradesh Court November 1999 Judgments

Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy and Others Vs. His Excellency, the Governme ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD763; 1999(6)ALT381

ORDERM. S. Liberhan, CJ 1. The leading politicians in public interest, as Legislators and public figures, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Governor of Andhra Pradesh to grant permission to prosecute the Chief Minister for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as represented in the representation dated 5-6-1999, and to direct the other respondents to produce records in their custody. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Chief Minister by name, Special Secretary to the Assembly, Special Judge and District Collector are the respondents in the writ petition.2. Petitioners represented on 5-6-1999 to the Governor to accord sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He being the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution, abdicated statutory duty under the Act by not granting sanction till 12-7-1999. He is subject of accountability enforceable in judicial revi...

Cement Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi and Others Vs. B.B.V. Kris ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD832; 1999(6)ALT341; (2000)ILLJ757AP

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This judgment will dispose of all the writ appeals. The appeals are filed by the Cement Corporation of Indiaand two others against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6-7-1999 made in WP Nos.10228, 19901, 22122, 23256, 23257, 24811, 26039 and 32845 of 1998.2. For the purpose of convenience we take up the writ appeal No.1351 of 1999 arising against the order in WP No.32845 of 1998. The parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition. We shall state the facts necessary for the disposal of all the appeals as follows:The Cement Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is fully owned Government of India Company. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. It has Cement Factories (Units) in various parts of the country. One such cement factory/unit is situated at Yerraguntla village in Cuddapah District, which is managed by the third respondent.The petitioner was appointed as a Sales Supervisor in the ...

Appana Suribabu and Others Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, E. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD135; 1999(6)ALT239

ORDER1. The first petitioner is the president of Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society, D. Polavaram and petitioners 2 to 12 are the members of the Managing Committee. Aggrieved by the proceedings in Rc.No. 954 of 1999 dated 3-7-1999 issued by the 3rd respondent, they have approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent as illegal. By the impugned order purporting to be under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Co-op. Societies Act, 1964 (hereafter called 'the Act'), the 3rd respondent passed orders superseding the Managing Committee and the President of the Society with effect from 3-7-1999 and appointing one P. Nageswara Rao, Circle Supervisor of the District Co-op. Central Bank-Branch, Tuni as a Special Officer for a period of three months.2. The facts in this case are not seriously disputed. That the petitioners were elected on 20-7-1995, that they were in charge of the affairs of the Society for the last 4 1/2 years, that there were no ad...

Kcp Ltd., Guntur Vs. Apseb, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD49

ORDER1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.16587 of 1990 is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it had setup among other things a Cement Plant at Macherla in Guntur District. The petitioner questions the legality and validity of levy and collection of Rs.18 lakhs towards service line charges and Rs.20,000/- towards service connection charges for releasing an additional load of 3000 KVA. The petitioner also questions the legality and validity of BPMS No.1 160 (Commercial), dated 3-11-1989 and also the mode of computation of service line charges as illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner-Company entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent-Board and is availing electricity supply for its Cement Plant at Macherla classified as High Tension (HT) consumer. The petitioner was initially availing supply at a voltage of 11KV. The...

V.J. Dandekar Vs. Meera Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD499; 2000(1)ALT751

1. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. OS No.365 of 1980 was filed by the plaintiff on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,65,887-80. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal would be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.2. The averments in the plaint in brief are set out as hereunder:The plaintiff is a graduate in Engineering and he has been working as Engineer and Contractor for the last 14 years and has sufficient experience in construction and expertise in construction of residential houses and flats. The defendant is a registered Society and they called for Tenders for construction of 48 flats initially, which was later on increased to 64 flats, al Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The plaintiff submitted his tender along with the necessary specifications to the defendants, prior to 22-7-1975. The defendant having found the tender of the plaintiff acceptable, accepted the said tender by thei...

Esi Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. J.D. Electronics, Abids, Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD582; 2000(1)ALD582; 2000(2)ALT119; 2000(2)ALT119; [2000(84)FLR899]; (2000)ILLJ1484AP; (2000)ILLJ1484SC

1. This appeal was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order dated 30-1-1994 in El Case No.10 of 1992 by which the order of the Corporation, demanding anamount of Rs.7,716/- under Section 85-B of the Act by way of damages for the delayed payment of contributions for the period from April, 1983 to June, 1986, was set aside by the Employees State Insurance Court, holding that the respondent No.1 herein is not liable to pay the damages as claimed by the appellant herein, on the ground that when the respondent No.1 herein filed EI Case No.42 of 1986 against the order of the appellant herein demanding contribution for Rs.35,502,80 Ps. by way of ad hoc, assessment for the period from 1-6-1983 to 30-8-1986, as the respondent firm is covered by the ESI Act with effect from 1-4-1983, which was intimated by the Corporation on 10-12-1986. While disposing of the above said EI Case No.42 of 1986 on 19-2-1987, the ESI Court has not empowered the Corporation to impose penal...

Srinivasa Automobiles Private Limited Vs. Ch. Surya Rao and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Balkishan Panwar. 2. After carefully going through the order of the East Godavari District Forum under appeal and the material papers filed alongwith it, we are satisfied that this is a case which discloses clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the second respondent. This appeal has been preferred by the second opposite party in CD No. 63/1999 questioning the order of the District Forum therein dated 9.9.1998. The complainant and the first opposite party in the C.D. are the first and second respondents in the appeal. 3. For the purpose of appreciating the issues involved, suffice it to state that the first respondent/complainant purchased a motor cycle under the hire purchase agreement entered into with the second respondent through the appellant who admittedly is the Scheme Manager, as the learned Counsel for the appellant puts it. The first respondent was paying the various instalmen...