Andhra Pradesh Court March 1999 Judgments

N. Chandrasekhar and Others Vs. Allwyn, a Unit of Voltas Ltd. and Anot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD44; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)671; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)357; [1999]97CompCas570(AP); 1999CriLJ4630

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners alongwith some others under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground taken in this petition for quashing of the proceedings is that the accused are not partners of the accused No. 1 firm which is a partnership concern and which had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant which got bounced. It is not disputed by the petitioners in this petition that they were partners of the firm but they have only stated that they are not continuing as partners of the firm. It is also submitted that when a notice was issued by the complainant in terms of Section 138 of NI Act after bouncing of the cheque the petitioners had replied saying therein that they were not continuing as partners of the said firm. The petitioners have further placed on record the Income tax returns from 1992 to 1998 showing thereby th...

P. Adimahalakshmamma Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Konakanamitla Mandal, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD111; 1999(2)ALT490

ORDER1. The first respondent after issuing show-cause notice on 11-3-1998 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assignment made in her favour in respect of the schedule land shall not be cancelled, passed the final order on 16-4-1998 directing resumption of the subject land. The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent requesting him to issue certified copy of the order dated 16-4-1998. The first respondent issued an endorsement dated 22-10-1998 which reads as under :'The assignment made in your favour of the land in Sy. Nos.114/1,4,5,6 and 7 to an extent of Ac.2.31 cts. is cancelled as you have violated the conditions laid down in the D Form patta and as you are not the resident of the village. As the above land is a Govt. land it is decided not to furnish certified copy of the said orders to you.'2. Since the petitioner was not furnished with the certified copy of the order dated 16-4-1998, an appealable order, the petitioner could no...

T.G. Veera Prasad Vs. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals L ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD289; 1999(3)ALT623; [1999]98CompCas806(AP)

1. Due to commonality of law and similarity of facts, both these appeals arc being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant T.G. Veera Prasad . and the appellant Tungiibhadra Machinery and Tools Limited (for short, TMTL') possessed 40000 equity shares and 50000 equity shares respectively in Sree Ray a I as ee ma Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Ltd. {for short, 'the Company'). The second respondent was its Managing Director at the relevant time. On 1-2-1998 he had floated a private limited company namely Brilliant Investments Private Limited (for short 'Brilliant')-the third respondent-with his wife and children controlling 99 percent of its share capital. On 21-6-1998, 50,00,000 shares of one TGL Group of which the appellants are also members, were transferred to the third respondent including 40000 shares of the appellant T.G. Veera Prasad and 50000 shares of TMTL.3. The appellant T.G. Veera Prasad filed a petition in CP 2/111/SRB/91 alleging that all the shares belonging to th...

Nisha A. Shenai Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD52; 1999(2)ALT776

ORDER1. This batch of writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, as one and [he same issue arises for consideration relating to the entitlement of the petitioners to appears in the examination for first year MBBS course commencing from last Monday of April, 1999. The petitioners assert that they are entitled to sit and write the examination of first year MBBS along with other students. The proceedings of the University dt. 2-11-S998 informing the Principals of all the Medical Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradcsh that the examinations will be commenced from the last Monday of April, ! 999 for the first MBBS students who were admitted in January, 1998 for the academic year 1997-98 and the students who were admitted into 1st MBBS will have the examinations in the month of October, 1999 is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners complain of discrimination. The decision of the University in refusing to grant permission to the petitioners to appear for the examinations c...

Mohammed Quadeer and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD60; 1999(2)ALT733

ORDER1. The petitioners arc the citizens of India. They are all brothers and residents of old city of Hyderabad. They all claim to have come from a family with good reputation. They claim to be small business men and running business like Kirana stores and Commission merchant. They claim to be doing business in the name and style of 'Deccan Traders'. 2. The petitioners say that they are the victims in the hands of antisocial elements, who demand money from the local people. They even go to the extent of alleging that those antisocial elements have the backing and support of politicians of the Old City, who are active in communal politics.3. It is stated that the petitioners are falsely implicated in a criminal case, which was ultimately tried as SC No.55S of 1995 and they were acquitted on 31-1-1997 after trial. It is stated that during the progress of the trial, the local politicians demanded money from the petitioners to get them released and on their refusal got the rowdy sheets ope...

Transport Corporation India Ltd. Vs. Employees Insurance Corpn., Hyder ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD245; 1999(3)ALT195

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the facts and question of law that arises for consideration in all these appeals arc common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Employees Insurance Court in E.I. Case No.52 of 1992 dated 15-3-1992; ESC No.54 of 1992 dated l5-3-1992;-ES Case No.1 of 1994 dated 12-5-1994; and ES Case Nos.35, 30, 31, 41, 33, 39 of 1990 dated 6-11-1993 respectively holding that the Hamalies are employees and the Transport Corporation is liable to pay contribution, the appellant-Transport Corporation filed these appeals. In CMA No. 1021 of 1992 the order under challenge relates to the applicability of the provisions of the ESI Act as well as the period of limitation and hence this appeal will be considered separately. The facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals areas follows.3. The appellant herein filed petitions before Employees Insurance Court at Hyderabad under Section 75(1) of the Employees State In...

M.V.V. Satyanarayana, Secunderabad Vs. Union of India

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD405; 1999(4)ALT761

ORDER1. These are the applications for appointment of Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties to these petitions.2. It is common ground that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondents on 19-02-1990 for doubling of track between Thangundi Chugunta Stations, earth work in formation, construction/extention of major/minor bridges as also other miscellaneous works from Ch.39000 to Ch.43200 in M in Rcach-VIII. The value of the contract was Rs.46,22,600/- and Rs.42,48,585/- respectively. The contract was to be completed on 31 -10-1990. But it was extended from time to time upto 30-4-1993. The work was completed on 30-4-1993, The petitioner had written a letter on 11-6-1993 wherein he has lodged certain claims. A qualified no claim certificate was given at the time of submission of the final bill. The 'No Claim Certificate' was given under protest. That had been lodged through letter dated 11-6-1993. The payment of final bill wa...

V. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. District Collector, Khammam and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD174a; 1999(3)ALT219

ORDER1. Rule nisi. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Writ Petition was heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission.2. The subject land was originallyowned by the petitioner and the land was acquired by the State for the public purpose. There is no controversy that the subject land is vested absolutely in the State after going through the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1978 itself. It seems that the subject land could not be put to the use for the purpose for which it was acquired. The petitioner made a representation to the State Authorities to reconvey the subject land to him vide his representation dated 25-2-1990. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to by the State Authorities. As the matter stood thus, the present writ petition was filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent the District Colle...

Secretary, Pulicherla Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Counsel for the appellants is not present and there is also no representation on his behalf in spite of the matter having been posted for dismissal/disposal. It shows a non-chalant attitude to the matters before us on the part of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants before us were the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in C.D. No. 146/1996 before the Chittoor District Forum and they question the order of that Forum dated 11.7.1997 allowing that C.D.C. The complainant in C.D.C. No. 146/1996 on the file of Chittoor District Forum is the 1st respondent before us. The 3rd opposite party in the C.D.C. is the 2nd respondent before us. Counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant is also not present. The Assistant Government Pleader represents the 2nd respondent. 2. The Assistant Government Pleader has placed before us the decision of the National Commission in Himachal Weavers Private Limited v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors., III (19...

Uni-ads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Mch, Hyd. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD600; 1999(2)ALT747

ORDER1. The questions of law involved in these two writ petitions areinterlinked. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition No.21781 of 1998 was filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not so far approving the agreement proforma submitted by the petitioner to commence the contract of three years and in not furnishing the letter of authorisation to enable the petitioner to fix advertisements as illegal and for consequential reliefs.3. Writ Petition No.31868 of 1998 was filed seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the proceedings issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation dated 21-7-1998 demanding a sum of Rs.1,86,93,500/- as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to extend the lease period for advertising on 4,500 eleclric poles of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) beyond 30-6-1998 by adjusting the payments already made by the petitioners....