Andhra Pradesh Court April 1999 Judgments

The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway and Another Vs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway and Chief Commercial Manager/ Superintendent (opposite parties) against the order of the District Forum in CC. No. 418/1993 dated 3.9.1998. Their contention is that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the dispute regarding refunding the fare for the journey not undertaken comes under the purview of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Therefore, the District Forum erred in directing the appellants to pay to the complainant (respondent in the appeal) a sum of Rs. 7,000/- with costs of Rs. 1,000/- within two months from the date of order and in case the opposite parties failed to pay the same the complainant was entitled to interest @ 15% per annum on the compensation amount. The record of the District Forum is before us. 2. The complaint in the original C.C. was as follows : The complainant, Chalamuru Venkateswara Rao planned to go...

institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India Vs. Council of the ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN665(AP)

Reddy, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21-11-1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 16332 of 1989.2. The dispute arose because of the Notification dated 3-8-1989 issued by the 1st respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (it) of Part 11 of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 Income Tax Act. The Notification reads'NOTIFICATION(Chartered Accountants)No. 1 -CA(7)/9/89: - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India hereby specifies that a member of the Institute, whether in practice or not, shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he becomes a member of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India on or after 1-1-1990 or having already become a member of the said Institute earlier, does not surrender his membership before the said...

institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, Hyd. and Others Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(4)ALD109; 2000(3)ALT574

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21-11-1990 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.16332 of 1989.2. The dispute arose because of the notification dated 3-8-1989 issued by the 1st respondent herein exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (ii) of Part II of II Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The notification reads :'Notification (Chartered Accountants) August 3, 1989 No.l-CA(7)/9/1989: In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of Part-11of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India hereby specifies that a member of the Institute, whether in practice or not, shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he becomes a member of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India on or after 1st January, 1990 or having already become a member of the said Insti...

A. Raghunath Rao Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD160; 1999(3)ALT347

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. This is the 3rd and 4th round of litigation concerning the bifurcation of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat and Constitution of separate Gram Panchayat for Marribandam in Krishna District. As long back as in 1972, Marribandam revenue village was excluded from Mirzapuram Gram Panchayat and included in Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat. In the year 1995, the District Collector issued notification calling for objections for the proposed bifurcation of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat and constituting separate Gram Panchayat for Marribandam village. The Gram Panchayat of Seetharampuram passed a resolution opposing the same. But the Collector issued a Notification on 12-5-1995 confirming the proposal. Writ Petition No.10225 of 1995 filed by the said Grama Panchayat was allowed by this Court on the short ground that the Collector failed to give any reasons while passing the impugned order. The Collector was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orde...

Bommisetty Prasada Rao, and Others Vs. Sas Mines and Minerals Ltd., Hy ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD358; 1999(3)ALT521; [1999]98CompCas48(AP)

ORDER1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliafion Act, 1996 (for short, 'the new Arbitration Act') for restraining the respondents from excavating and transporting the black granite stone from the land in question, without making full payment of the excavated stones as also payment of arrears of Rs.62,53,923.30 during the pendency of the arbitration application.2. It is no longer in dispute before me that the petitioners and B. Srinivasa Rao and Ramanadham were joint owners of land admeasuring Ac. 17.92 cts. in Survey No.55/68 situated in Rajupalem Lakshmipuram of Chimakurthi Mandal of Prakasham District (for short, 'the land in question'). Srinivasa Rao and Ramanadham had 20 per cent share each in the land in question and the remaining 60 per cent share belongs to the petitioners. The first respondent had taken the lease of the land in question from the petitioners and Srinivasa Ran and Ramanadham through two registered lease deeds dated 25-6-1992 for ...

Karumilli Bharathi Vs. Prichikala Venkatachalam

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD366; 1999(3)ALT407

ORDER1. CRP No. 3871 of 1998 was filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 2-7-1998 passed by the senior Civil Judge, Tadipalligudem in IA No.486 of 1998 in OS No. 73 of 1997. IA No.476 of 1998 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 176/ 197 days in filing the pclition to set aside the decree passed in a summary suit under Order 37 of CPC. The trial Court dismissed it. The Civil Revision Petilion filed by the defendant was allowed by me condoning the delay on a costs of Rs.1,000/- vide my judgment dated 19-11-1998. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 19-11-1998 passed in CRP No.3875/1998.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that this Court has condoned the delay but without repelling the reasons given by the Court below in not accepting the cause sought to be made out by the defendant. Therefore, he submitted that there is an error apparent on the face...

Shaik Khasim Bi Vs. the Principal Magistrate (Election Tribunal), Gunt ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD350; 1999(3)ALT73

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 28-4-1997 passed by the Principal Munsif Magistrate (Election Tribunal) Guntur in EOP No. 18 of 1996.2. By the said order, the above Tribunal while selling aside the election of the Sarpanch, namely, Suit. Shaik Mahahoab Den, ordered re-election. Against the order selling aside the election, WP No.25522/97 was filed, while WP No.14129/97 is directed against the consequential direction for conducting the fresh election as against the prayer for declaring her, namely, Smt. Shaik Khasim Bee, as the Sarpanch.3. The cases have checkered history. In order to avoid confusion, we refer the parties as arrayed in the Election Petition. Smt. Shaik Khasini Bee was the election petitioner, while Smt. Shaik Mahuboob Bee was the 1 st respondent. We refer to them accordingly. The Election Officer will be referred to as the 3rd respondent and the State Election Commission as the 6th respondent.4. The post ...

Mudunuri Suryanarayanaraju Vs. Korukonda Apparao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD415; 1999(3)ALT337

1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram in a Small Cause Case No.81/1988, dated 17-12-1997, whereby the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the proper Court.2. The petitioner filed SCC 81/1988 alleging that he is the owner and landlord of the suit shop by virtue of the sale deed dated 10-2-1984, Ex.A1, which had been executed by Jupudi Ammaji @ Hymasundari who had obtained this properly from her mother-in-law namely Jupudi Sesharatnam through settlement deed dated 31-7-1957, Ex.A2. The respondent who was his tenant in the suit shop did not pay the agreed rent at the rate of Rs.35/- permonth for 36 months amounting to Rs.1,260/- and sought for a money decree for the saidamount. The respondent-defendant throughwritten statement alleged that he is the tenantof Jupudi Kesavarao in respect of the suitshop for the last 30-40 years and had beenpaying rent to him. The vendor...

P. Thirumala Devi Vs. A.P. Education Dept., Hyderabad and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD313; 1999(3)ALT424

ORDER1. The petitioner herein challenges sub-rule 6 of Rule 12 of G.O. Ms. No.1, Education (PS.2) Department, dated 1-1-1994 as unconstitutional and beyond the rule making power of the 1st respondent and seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for appointment to the post of S.G. Teachers.2. The petitioner, a post graduate in M.A. and having B.Ed. Qualification, pursuant to the notification published in Telugu dailies 'Vaarlha' and 'Eenadu' by the respondent No.4 respectively on 14-4-1996 and 15-4-1996 inviting applications for two aided posts of SGBT in their school, applied for appointment to the post of SGBT within the time prescribed. The notification indicates that the two posts are meant for woman applicants belonging to SC and BC-A group candidates. It also indicates that besides having requisite qualification of TTC or BEd., the name of the candidate should have been registered in an employment exchange. Since the 4th respondent is an aided school, the p...

Dr. M. Rammohan Rao Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD511; 1999(3)ALT421

ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. The appellant/ petitioner challenges the action of respondents in not promoting him to the post of Executive Director. The appeal arises due to failure of the writ petitioner to convince the learned single Judge in accepting his contention.2. The undisputed facts show that petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer in respondent No.1-Corporation some time in 1965. He was later appointed as Supernumerary Assistant Mechanical Engineer in November, 1966. Later he was impaneled by the appropriate Selection Committee by its Minutes dated 12-6-1976 for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager. The said panel was valid upto 1977. Before he could be promoted certain delinquencies were detected on his part by the Management. He was placed under suspension from 23-5-1977 and after an enquiry, penalty was imposed by order dated 10-5-1979 holding that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager and his pay was reduced. This...