Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
U. Appa Rao Vs. Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD336; 1999(3)ALT215; [1999(82)FLR803]
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Sri C. V. Ramulu, Standing Counsel took notice for the respondents. The writ petition is finally heard with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner who is Security Head Guard in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation, has assailed the validity of the officer order dated 24-3-1999 transferring him from Ealeshwaram to Vizianagaram. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the action on the ground that the petitioner was subjected to frequent transfers in his career and that he was transferred 18 times in his total service of 24 years and therefore the present impugned action is arbitrary. Learned Counsel also contends that the petitioner is suffering from 'Diaorhoea' and therefore he could not be transferred to Vizianagaram.3. Who should work where is essentially for the employer to decide.Simply because the petitioner was transferred 18 times during his service, that fact itself cannot be a vitiating factor to nullify the present im...
K. Paliniyappan Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD397; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)680; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)584; 1999CriLJ3616
ORDER1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak had admitted the petitioner to bail subject to his executing personal bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/ - with two sureties. An application was made to this Court for modifying the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate. The conditions have also been modified, but during the hearing of the matter and on perusal of the case diaries this Court found that the petitioner has been kept in wrongful confinement, for a long time, therefore by order dated 21-10-1998 explanation was called from the concerned Police Officer. The explanation was furnished and in the explanation it was stated that the petitioner was not kept in wrongful confinement but has been sent to judicial custody on proper orders from the Magistrate concerned. In the light of this, the Magistrate's explanation was also called for. The explanation is received.Record also has been received. The record makes an interesting reading. The accused-petitioner was produced for ...
Gajjala Samuel Vs. Gajjala Lalamma and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD392; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)675; 1999(2)ALT632; 1999CriLJ3652; II(1999)DMC519
ORDER1. Nobody appears for petitioner when the matter was listed for dismissal. But on going through the record, I found that the learned Sessions Judge has passed an order in a eriminal revision dismissing the revision in default. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down as follows :'397 : Calling for records to exercise powers of revision : (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for (he purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending examination of the record.'This provision gives a power to the Sessions Judge and to the High Court for calling for the ...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. the Coromandal Cashews Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALT120
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in LA. No.1643 of 1996 in O.P. No.7 of 1996 dated 9-11-1998, whereunder the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed on 27-8-1996 in O.P. 7/96 was dismissed. The factual background of this case is that the respondent herein filed O.P. 7 of 1996 on 17-1-1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioners (sic. appellant) went on taking adjournments to file counter. On 27-8-1996, when the request was repeated, the Senior Civil Judge passed the following order:'Counter not filed, requested for time is refused. It is recorded that respondent has no counter. Heard arguments. Petition is allowed. Sri Justice P.L.N. Sharma, retired Judge of High Court is appointed as arbitrator to determine the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 25-9-1992...
K. Seetharama Dass Vs. Sikile Moses and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD10; 1999(2)ALT567
ORDER1. The petitioner under extraordinary circumstances invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant some what peculiar relief by way of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to cause arrest of the first respondent herein and his production before the learned sentoz Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavan District, in connection with El* No.46 of 1992 in OS No.143 of 1982. The petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate directions to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru to arrest the first respondent and produce him before the said Court.2. The petitioner obtained a money decree against the first respondent herein in OS 143 of 1982 on the file of the learned senior Civil Judge, Narsapur (for short 'the said Court') on 5-11-1992. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the first respondent preferred an appeal - AS No.956 of 1993 in this Court. This Court while admitting the appeal granted stay of the ...
Mogili Chinna Balaiah Vs. K. Samba Murthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)926; 1999(3)ALT667; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)140
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed in C.F.R. 3965 of 1996 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur dated 9-10-1996.2. The complainant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 109, IPC against the accused 1 to 9. The lower Court held that the petition is not maintainable either in law or fact as the defacto complainant did not obtain any permission to prosecute the accused A-7 to A-9 under Section 197, Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Government is not the appointing authority in respect of A-7 to A-9, A-7 is a Sub-Registrar and A-8 and A-9 who are Clerks. A-7 was appointed under Rule 4-A of the A.P. Registration Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Deputy Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps is the appointing authority to the post of Sub-Registrar and as such no sanction i...
K.V. Lakshmana Rao Vs. Regional Censor Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALT46
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the certification of the Telugu film titled as 'English Pellam - East Godavari Mogudu'. In the writ affidavit, several instances have been mentioned, by which, Mr. Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such scenes are not only indecent but contemptuous and opposed to public morality. The iniplead petitioner is only aggrieved regarding the title 'East Godavari Mogudu' and taking the name of the district as objectionable. At the outset, we reject this contention. Merely because it is titled as 'East Godavari Mogudu' it cannot be called as offensive and it has to be taken in the sense a movie, is to be understood. As such, we do not see anything objectionable in the title.2. Insofar as the scenes said to be objectionable, both visual and dialogues are concerned, after hearing the matter on last Friday, that is, 2-4-1999, we had viewed the picture arranged in a preview theatre in Film...
T. Ranga Reddy Vs. Joint Project Co-ordinator, Non-ferrous Material Te ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD173; 1999(3)ALT51
ORDER1. In WP No. 16587 of 1994, the order dated 6-6-1994 terminating the services of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Non-Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre ('NFTDC' for short) is under challenge. The other three writ petitions are filled by casual employees and workers of NFTDC seeking regularisation of their services.2. The common question which arises in all these writ petitions is whether NFTDC is 'State'/ 'Instrumentality of State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and a writ may be issued against it.3. Judicial review of private action or in other words regulation of the exercise of power by private bodies discharging public functions is one of the major concerns of administrative law in recenttimes. The concept of 'State' and 'State Action' has undergone drastic changes and the line of demarcation between public law and private law has become blurred. After all, the purpose of law, be it public or private, is to impart ju...
Psm Spinning Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. A.P. State Financial Corporation, Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD251; 1999(3)ALT244; [1999]98CompCas303(AP)
1. This is an application for revoking the order of admission passed in CP No.91 of 1997 dated 24-12-1998 or., in the alternative to defer the order of advertisement of admission of petition in two daily newspapers, pending disposal of CP No.91 of 1997.2. The respondent-Corporation has filed an application under Section 473(e) of the Companies Act for winding up of the petitioner-Company. On 22-8-1997, notice before admission was ordered to be served on the petitioner-Company. Accordingly notice before admission was, served on the petitioner-Company. On 16-10-1997, the petitioner-Company had filed its counter. Thereafter reply to the counter was also filed. Arguments at length of the learned Counsel of both the sides were heard and on 24-12-1998 petition was admitted. It was ordered that admission of petition be advertised in two news papers as per rules. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to suspend the operation of the order on the ground that the petitioner-Com...
Golla Thirupathaiah and ors. Vs. Karnam Ramasubbaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALT111
ORDERB.S. Raikote, J.1. Heard.2. This revision petition is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and order dated 29-1-1999 passed on I.A. No. 31/98 in O.S. No. 95/96 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. By the impugned order, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs in LA. No. 31/98 was allowed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that as per the plaint filed, the plaintiffs admitted that the first defendant is the owner of the land situated to the south of C1 C1 C1 field channel in which the first defendant has dug a field channel, but by the proposed amendment the plaintiffs want to include the said field channel within the suit schedule property contending that the field channel is also part and parcel of Survey No. 440. He contended that this amendment if allowed would change the nature of the suit and the plaintiffs have not pleaded any cause of action regarding the field channel. In fact, according to the plaint which was filed al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »