Andhra Pradesh Court November 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nehrunagar Co-operative Housing Society and ors. Vs. E. Bhagwandass an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALT160
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. These two appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment as the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad disposed of the two suits O.S.No. 356/87 and O.S.No. 1486/82 by a common Judgment, against which the present appeals are filed. In both the appeals, the defendants are the appellants.2. C.C.C.A.No. 63/94 is filed against the Judgment in O.S.No. 356/87 whereas C.C.C.A.No. 92/94 is filed against the Judgment in O.S.No. 1486/82.3. O.S.No. 356/87 was filed by the plaintiffs therein for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit land forming part of S.No. 74/10 as per the boundaries detailed in the schedule and the plan annexed, for directing delivery of possession and for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on further construction and direct demolition of the constructions already carried out and for costs of the suit, while O.S.No. 1486/82 was filed for a declaration that the action of the first defendant/Municipal corporation...
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. M. Krishnaveni
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD357; 2000(1)ALT138
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J1. All these appeals arc directed against a common order dated 15-2-1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.28157, 28158, 28292, 28390, 28491 and 28874 of 1998.2. Writ Appeal No.438 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28157 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.439 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WPNo.28491 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.440 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WPNo.28158 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.44l of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28390 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.442 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28874 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.443 of 1999 is filed against tlie order passed in WP No.28292 of 1998.3. The reliefs sought by the petitioners in each writ petition read as follows :The reliefs sought in WP No.28157 of 1998 are to declare the order dated 23-7-1979 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the...
B.H.K. Rao Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Visakhapatnam and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD83; 2000(1)ALT538; [2000(85)FLR773]
ORDER1. The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in ID No. 143 of 1997, dated 3-7-1999.2. It is stated that the petitioner workman was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 22-10-1984. While he was working as Conductor, on 17-8-1995 a check was conducted by the officials and found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to a batch of four passengers, after collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 1.25 each totalling to Rs.5.00. Accordingly, a charge was issued and an enquiry was conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, the Depot Manager passed orders removing the petitioner from service by order dated 4-12-1995. The said order of removal became the subject matter of the ID at the instance of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the rival contentions and the material on record concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and there were ...
Md. Sabber Ali Vs. Vandana Chit Funds
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD261; 2000(1)ALT294
ORDER1. The gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.4359-09 ps. per month. The attachment order speaks of attachment of one third of the salary after deducting the first Rs.400/- from out of the salary including all allowances. That comes to Rs.1318/-and odd. After deducting this amount towards instalments, the petitioner will be left with Rs.2600/- and odd.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee of Singareni Collieries. Therefore, allowances cannot be attached as per Section 60 CPC.3. This contention cannot be entertained in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in N. Venugopala Rao v. LIC of India, South Central Zone, represented By Zonal Manager, Hyderabad, : 1995(2)ALT70 . In that case, the Bench was considering the case of an LIC employee. The Bench held that the LIC of India is not one of the organisations which come within the purview of Section 60 of CPC and therefore, the exemption of attachment with regard to the al...
Arigala Venkaratnam Vs. Sundaraneedi Sarveswara Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD447; 2000(2)ALT122
ORDER1. This second appeal raises a short but interesting question of Hindu law. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the suit for partitionof the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him after ejecting the defendants therefrom and to award future profits on his share. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They originally constituted a Hindu Joint Family of which the first defendant was the Kartha. The 5th defendant is the alienee of the plaint schedule property under a sale deed dated 3-11-1963 executed by the first defendant. The sale deed was preceded by an agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 5th defendant. After the said agreement of sale but before the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice to defendants 1 to 5 on 25-7-1963 demanding partition to which a reply was sent ...
M. Jagan Reddy and Others Vs. Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD518
ORDER1. The petitioners allege that they are the petty vegetable vendors in vegetable market at Uppal, maintained by the respondent in furtherance of the provisions of Sections 276 and 277 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). They approached this Court with the following relief :A writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent in not allotting the shops to the petitioners in Vegetable Market, Uppal and issuing a notification in Ref. File No.D/1555 dated 1-11-1999 as illegal andarbitrary.2. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition they claim that they have been carrying on the vegetable business since 1978. Some officials also assured them that they will be given pukkah shops on a reasonable rent as and when the construction is made. All these assurances are oral assurances. Now the respondent after completion of the municipal shops in the municipal market has issued an auction notice dated 1-11-1999, which is impugned in this writ petition...
Geetha General Merchants, Vikarabad and Another Vs. Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD684; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)275; 2000(1)ALT239
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J1. The appellants herein filed Writ Petition No.13593 of 1995 questioning the action of the first respondent in seizing 45 quintals of sunflower oil and the vehicle carrying the same. A direction was sought to drop the proceedings under Sections 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The goods in question were seized by the first respondent under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. The said Control Order was promulgated under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act. Condition No.7 of the licence issued under the said Control Order was alleged to have been violated. The learned single Judge found that there was prima fade violation of Condition No.7warranting farther enquiry and, therefore, the seizure as a whole is not vulnerable to attack. Before the learned single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in P. Ramachandra Chetty v. Government of...
i. Venkat Rao Vs. Municipal Corporation of Warangal and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD411; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)374
ORDER1. The petitioner is a resident of Warangal town. He is aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent in Roc.No.G2/UC/13358/96, dated 4-5-1998. Apart from not being able to satisfactorily explain the delay in approaching the Court assailing the order passed about one year ago, the petitioner has chosen a wrong remedy in a wrong forum. The petitioner should be non-suited as the writ petition is a frivolous and vexatious one. These introductory remarks are not without any justification. As the case unfolds as hereunder, these remarks would be justified.2. The second respondent is unfortunately the neighbour of the petitioner. He obtained a building permission under Municipal Corporation Act on 26-5-1993. According to the petitioner, the permit is for raising ground floor residential structure. However, it is alleged that the second respondent in utter violation of the plan as well as the zoning regulations extended the construction towards north where allegedly the petitioner...
C.P. Roy Vs. Special Court, Under A.P. Land Grabbing Act and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD766
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the questions of facts and law involved in all these writ petitions are common, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos.22323, 22334 and 23999 of 1996 are filed challenging the common order passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in LGC Nos.45 of 1991 and 12 of 1992 dated 25-9-1996.3. LGC No.45 of 1991 was filed under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by the State against (1) C.P. Roy (2) Jagapathi Rao (deleted) (3) M.H. Chinoy (4) Anil Kundal (5) Smt. Cherukuri Srilaxmi (6) M/s. Meenakshi Constructions represented by its Managing Director Sivarama Prasad (7) Jamuna and (8) Shaik Ismail before the Special Court.4. LGC No.12 of 1992 was filed by the applicants viz., Cherukuri Srilaxmi and M/s. Meenakshi Constructions Company, represented by its Managing Director, Sivarama Prasad in the Court of the Additiona...
Sharma and Sons Vs. Engineer-in-chief, Army Headquarters and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALT587
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an independent arbitrator Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(Act 12 of 1996) (for short 'the Act') for deciding the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents relating to the execution of contract entered into by them vide agreement bearing No. C.A. No. CEHZ/ SEC/07 of 92-93 dated 13-10-1992. The claim in respect of which arbitration is sought is of the value of approximately Rs. 27,40,000-00.2. In answer to the notice, counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. It is alleged in the counter that without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, since an arbitrator is appointed on 13-5-1999 vide letter No. 13600/SC/596/E8 by the appointing authority the present application becomes infructuous and may be dismissed by this Court.3. Without going into the merits of the controversy raised in the application and as the respondents agreed to appoint an arbitrator ...