Andhra Pradesh Court March 1999 Judgments

Chief Accounts Officer (Tr) and Another Vs. Smt. V. Yamini

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. FA. IA. No. 1260/1998 is for condoning the delay of 54 days in presenting the appeal FA. SR. No . 3347/1997 by the opposite parties in C.D. No. 145/1994 questioning the order of the Nalgonda District Forum dated 11.9.1997. The order of the District Forum was despatched on 6.10.1997 and the Counsel for the petitioners/appellants states that as per the notings on the copy of the order received by the petitioners it was received by them on 8.10.1997. The last date for presenting the appeal was 7.11.1997. The appeal was presented on 30.12.1997. The reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit given by the Advocate clerk of the Senior Standing Counsel is as follows : I submit that the order copy sent by the Asst. Government Pleader received by me on 15.10.1997 and the same was misplaced in the office as the order copy was mixed up in the other files, due to a reminder from the Telephone Authorities the order copy was searched and traced. There is no explana...

Chandra Mouli Reddy Vs. Member-secretary, Apseb

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1350AP

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. Rule nisi, Mr. R. Ramanujam, learned Standing Counsel for APSE Board, took notice for the respondents. The facts and the question of law which do arise for consideration and resolution are the same in both these writ petitions. Hence, they were clubbed and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. Admittedly the petitioners in both the writ petitions entered the services of the respondent-Board on contract basis subsequent on September 23, 1996. It is also an admitted position that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is an appropriate government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') issued notification under Section 10 of the Act abolishing contract labour in the APSE Board as regards the 33 categories of; employment. It is also an admitted position that all the petitioners herein are engaged on contract basis in the aforementioned prohibited 33 categories of emplo...

V.S. Narayana Vs. Brooke Bond India Limited, Bangalore

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD47; 1999(2)ALT528

ORDER1. This Writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in depriving the benefits of the amended pensionary scheme to the employees who retired from service prior to the year 1986, and confining the said benefits only to the employees retired after 1986, as viotative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent-Brooke Bond India Limited and he retired from service on 1-4-1985. The Company introduced Pension Scheme in 1979. The petitioner opted for the said scheme on his retirement and his pension was accordingly fixed at Rs.277.50 ps. permonth. The Pension Scheme thus introduced in 1979 was revised in 1982 and 1986 and in 1990 revising the pensionary benefits admissible to various employees. However, the revised pensionary benefits were not extended to the petitioner on the ground that he retired from service prior to the revision of the pension scheme in the year 1990. Agg...

Director of Settlements, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad Vs. V.V.V.R.K. Yache ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD50; 1999(2)ALT601

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ 1. The sole grievance made by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the learned single Judge has not taken into consideration the judgement of the Supreme Court pronounced in Civil Appeal Nos.398 and 1385 of 1972 deciding the litigation between the parties finally. He also submits that the self-same parties who were before the Supreme Court are also parties before this Court in the present appeal.2. The view expressed by the High Court in the judgment dated 5-9-1969 in WP No.496 of 1965 was challenged in the said appeals before the Supreme Court to be erroneous so far it held that interim payments do not cease with the date of original determination by the Director under Section 39(1) and deposit even on the basis of the language of the relevant Sections as they stood originally before the amendments.3. The Honourable Supreme Court has determined the list between the parties with respect to the vires of the AndhraPradesh (Andhra Area) Estat...

Annapureddy Chinna Venkatamma Vs. Annapureddy Krishna Reddy and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD276; 1999(3)ALT299

1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, passed in IA 2136 of 1997 in OS 245 of 1990, dated 26-6-1998. By the impugned order the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff is refused by dismissing the petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the proposed amendment is only clarificatory in nature and the same could have been allowed and the Court below was in error in holding that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and accordingly prejudices the case of the defendant. He also submitted that by allowing the proposed amendment, the defendants would not be prejudiced. Therefore the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in refusing the amendment sought for by the plaintiff and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He relied upon thejudgment of the Supreme Court reported in Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanapp...

Yousuf Jani (Smt.) Vs. Md. YousufuddIn and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)70; II(2000)DMC155

ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J. 1. This revision is filed against the order of the Family Court Judge, Secunderabad in M.C. No. 34/96 dated 15.5.1997.2. The respondent-husband has filed a counter in the month of May, 1994 stating that he has given Talaq to the petitioner and, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance beyond Iddat period. Even assuming that the Talaq pleaded earlier was not established, the Talaq comes into effect atleast from the date of filing of the counter. That being so, the petitioners shall be entitled for maintenance of the rate of Rs. 500/- per month under Section 125, Cr.P.C. from June, 1993 to May, 1994 plus Iddat period. The respondent-husband is directed to pay entire maintenance amount on or before 15th April. The petitioner is entitled for legal expenses at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-.3. With the above observation, the criminal revision case is disposed of....

Shaik Mastan Saheb Vs. the Chairman, Tobacco Board, Guntur

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any basis for allowing this complaint. The complainant has come to this Commission complaining that he purchased tobacco from an auction held by the Tobacco Board pursuant to the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (1975 Act) and rules and regulations framed under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1975 Act. The Tobacco Board (Auction) Regulations, 1984 are the regulations which governs the sale of tobacco by auction by the Tobacco Board. The officer in charge of the auctions is the Auction Superintendent. The regulations require that the tobacco sold is to be kept in bales which are weighed and marked clearly and arranged for auction on the platforms. The auction procedure is provided under Regulation 15 and the conduct of sales under Regulation 16. The relevant regulation for the purpose of the present complaint is Regulation 24 which is as follows : 24. Removal of bales by buyers(1) A buyer shall remove the bales purchased by him from the place of sale on th...

Gaddam Vijaya Bhskara Reddy and Others Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD574; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)490; 1999CriLJ2715

ORDER1. The petitioners are accused No.l, 2, 9, 10 and 11 in Crime No.42/98. The Inspector of Police, Addanki has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and 12 others in the Court of the Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Addanki under Sections 147, 148, 302, 427 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 of E.S. Act. It is alleged that on 15-9-1998 at 6.00 p.m. the defacto complainant along with her husband was proceeding from Narsaraopet to Kammalapadu.On reaching Kammalapadu, the defacto complainant's husband got down from his vehicle and was talking to villagers, the driver of the car was standing near the car and at that time Al and A2 hurled bombs on the face of the driver and A3 and A4 hurled bombs on the husband of the defacto complaint. Subsequently A5 to Al I armed with axes, knives and sickles chased and attacked the husband of the defacto complainant. The husband of the complainant died and a report was given to the Police on 15-9-1998 by his wife. The petitioners claim that they cam...

inder Singh Vs. Syed HussaIn and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD596; 1999(2)ALT486

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. The appellant, aged 40 years at the relevant time and who was working as Sub-Inspector of Excise, met with an accident on 10-10-1986 resulting in fracture of left leg and left hand and shortening of leg by three inches. The injured was drawing a net salary ofRs.1,560/- at the relevant time. As a result of the accident, the appellant remained on leave on full pay for three months, on half-pay for some period and thereafter without salary for some other period. By the time the award was passed by the Tribunal, the appellant continued to be in service. But, ultimately, it appears that on account of the shortening of the leg by 3', he was ordered to be retired from service on medical invalidation grounds by order dated 27-12-1995 of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (Hyderabad Division). The appellant has filed a miscellaneous petition i.e., CMP No.1252 of 1999 praying this Court to place on record the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner ...

Sanjay Jayantilal and Co. and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD512; 1999(2)ALT421

ORDER1. The first petitioner is the sole Marketing Agent of the lottery tickets of Royal Government of Bhutan in the territory of India. The second petitioner is the stockist of the said lottery tickets appointed by the first petitioner for the State of Andhra Pradesh. They areaggrieved by the action of the Police Officials in the State of Andhra Pradesh in not allowing or permitting them the sale of Bhutan Government lottery tickets. Shorn of all the details, the authority and jurisdiction of the respondents in interfering with the rights of the petitioners to sell Bhutan Government lottery tickets (for short 'lottery tickets') in the State of Andhra Pradesh is challenged. It is their case that the respondents have no authority in law whatsoever to interfere with their right to sell the lottery tickets in the State of Andhra Pradesh.2. It is their case that the Government of India and the Royal Government of Bhutan have entered into a bilateral agreement of trade and commerce signed b...