Andhra Pradesh Court April 1999 Judgments

K.P. Leela Vs. Secretary, Law, Govt. of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD595; 1999(3)ALT562

ORDER1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the Andhra Pradesh Advocates Fee Rules, 1990 (in short 'the Rules') with effect from preceding three years from the date of filing of this writ petition to all the Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and Standing Counsels of the State Government Organisations.2. This writ petition is styled as 'public interest litigation'. The petitioner states that she was the Standing Counsel to M.C.H. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,she states that the Standing Counsels in the State are being exploited by the State Government by not following the Rules, and the Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and the Standing Counsels for different State Government Organisations are paid fees less than what the Rules prescribe, and they are being paid consolidated salary. She further states that unless one has a bargaining power with the Government, such person can...

Bier Vs. Chairman and M.D. Adivasi Paper Mills Ltd. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD655

ORDER1. In all these cases, the OfficialLiquidator is claiming proportionate expenses from the other creditors like financial institutions, and in some cases, such report praying for such contribution of expenses are pending and in some cases, there is already a direction to the financial institutions to pay their share of expenses and in some cases, such financial institutions have filed applications to recall the earlier order directing them to contribute towards the expenses. In view of these circumstances, the learned Counsel appearing for the other secured creditors who were permitted to stand outside the winding up, are contending that they are not liable to pay or contribute towards the expenses to be incurred by the Official Liquidator for paper publication etc. It is their case that the Official Liquidator can claim such expenses from the Central Government. But the case of the Official Liquidator in all these cases is that such other creditors are liable to share the expenses...

Bayya Janaki Vs. Special Deputy Collector Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD226; 1999(4)ALT288

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This review petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment passed in AS No.2923 of 1996 dated 30-12-1998.2. It is well settled that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case or an appeal. The finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept in the judgment rendered earlier. The interference of the Court is warranted only when there is error apparent on the face of the record which requires correction or modification failing which it causes grave injustice to the party. In a similar situation the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, : [1980]2SCR650 held as follows :'An error apparent on the face of the record exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to ambit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgme...

Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Vs. Adivasi Paper Mi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)1CompLJ209(AP)

B.S. Raikote, J. 1. In all these cases, the official liquidator is claiming proportionate expenses from the other creditors like financial institutions, and in some cases, such report praying for such contribution of expenses are pending and in some cases, there is already a direction to the financial institutions to pay their share of expenses and in some cases, such financial institutions have filed applications to recall the earlier order directing them to contribute towards the expenses. In view of these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the other secured creditors who were permitted to stand outside the winding up, are contending that they are not liable to pay or contribute towards the expenses to be incurred by the official liquidator for paper publication, etc. It is their case that the official liquidator can claim such expenses from the Central Government. But the case of the official liquidator in all these cases is that such other creditors are liable to shar...

Dr. N. Sandhya Rani Vs. M. Kalpana and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. Dr. N. Sandhya Rani representing Narayana Memorial Nursing Home, Kasibugga, Warangal being the first opposite party in CD. No. 583/1992 on the file of Warangal District Forum preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 30.11.1995 passed by the said District Forum directing her to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 65,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that she was negligent in conducting Tubectomy operation on the complainant. 2. The facts that gave rise to filing of this appeal are briefly stated as follows. The respondent herein being the complainant before the District Forum filed a complaint numbered as CD. No. 583 /1992 alleging that she approached the appellant to have a family planning operation, that on 15.7.1989 the appellant conducted tubectomy operation, that she remained in the hospital of the appellant for about 7 days, that thereafter she was discharged on 21.7.1989 after some clinical tests were conducted at the instance...

M/S. Jagtial Consumer Welfare Council and Another Vs. the S.D.M., Lic, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. This is a complaint filed before this Commission on 24.3.1992 under Section 17(a)(i) read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments. The first complainant is M/s. Jagtial Consumer Welfare Council represented by its Secretary and the second complainant is one Smt. Mahesh Rangamma, w/o. Jalpat Rao of Gopulapur Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District. One Mahesh Umapathi Rao son of the second complainant sent proposals for Money Back Insurance Policy with double accident benefits under Table No. 75/20 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 31.8.1990 by paying sum of Rs. 304/- on 17.8.1990 and another sum of Rs. 1,000/ on 31.8.1990. Subsequently he was murdered by Naxalites on 27.9.1990. The second complainant being his mother and being a nominee under the policy submitted her claim forms to the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jagtial (opposite party No. 2) requesting for payment of Rs. 1 lakh payable under...

Vinayaka Cotton Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. The complainant, Mr. M. Seetharamaiah, insured cotton barrels worth Rs. 4,50,000/- stored at the premises of Sri Dhanalakshmi Cotton Ginning Mill, Nallapadu Road, Guntur under Policy No. 550504/- 32002504/89 by paying premium of Rs. 5,344/- to the opposite party i.e., National Insurance Company Ltd. It was a Fire Policy C covering the stock of cotton barrels, seeds etc, from 3.4.1989 to 30.6.1989 (copy marked as Ex. A5). In a fire accident on 27.5.1989 at 7.20 p.m. there was a total damage of the stored cotton barrels. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party and as per its requirement sent the duly filled in claim forms making claim for a sum of Rs. 4,16,354/- towards the value of the damaged stock. The premises was inspected by the Surveyor but the claim was not paid. On 9.2.1990, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party stating that, the policy was not tenable in terms and conditions thereof and therefore, it w...

Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD436

ORDER1. Writ Petition Nos.34849 and 35775 of 1997 have been filed challenging the common order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.Nos. 219 and 1267 of 1997 respectively. Whereas, Writ Petition No.6758 of 1988 has been Hied questioning the orders passed in V.M.A.No.448 of 1997 in OA.No.1670/97 for not vacating the interim orders passed by the Tribunal directing the respondent therein (the petitioner herein) who was a promotee on the basis of seniority given in GO Ms. No.201 dated 23-5-1994 which was passed regularising the services of the petitioner herein with effect from the date of his promotion.2. The petitioner (Sri Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan) in WP No.34849 of 1997 and the petitioner (Sri G.Narasimham) in WP No.35775 of 1997 were originally appointed as police constable in Andhra Pradesh Police Service. Considering their meritorious service, they were appointed, as out of seniority Sub-Inspectors with effect from 25-8-1984 and 3-12-1983 respectively and they ...

Andhra Engineering Corporation, Secunderabad Vs. Tci Finance Ltd., Sec ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD393; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)676

1. This Revision is filed against the judgment and sentence passed in Crl. A No.91/98 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.2. The case arises under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly the petitioner/accused approached the complainant/lst respondent for Bill Discounting facility by entering into agreement in the month of July 1995. The petitioner availed the Bill Discounting facility amounting to Rs.10,76,426.25 ps. The petitioner signed the Hundi and submitted invoices along with his covering letter. The petitioner had to repay the Bill Discounting amount within 90 days from the period of borrowal. The due date was 28-10-1995. However, he did not repay the amount. The petitioner issued Ex.PS,which is the cheque in his case, dated 28-10-1995 for an amount of Rs.10,76,000/ -. Subsequent to the issuance of the cheque, -an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in the month of November 1995. Again in the month of February 1996 the petitioner paid ...

B. Shivakumar Vs. Govt. of A.P., Law Department, Hyderabad and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD528; 1999(3)ALT389

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not appointing him to the post of District and Sessions Judge Gr. II in spite of the recommendations by the High Court-2nd respondent as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides violative of principles of natural justice.2. The petitioner had obtained BL degree from Sri Venkateswara University in the year 1987. He got himself enrolled as an Advocate on the rolls of the A.P. State Bar Council on 24-4-1987. He started his practice in Kavali by joining as a junior advocate in the office of one Sri M. Eshwara Prasad who is a senior advocate in the Bar of Kavali. The petitioner is also a member of the Kavali Bar Association. The petitioner has been assisting his senior in civil and criminal cases in the Courts of Subordinate Judge and District Munsif Courts at Kavali besides appearing before Revenue Courts and Consumer Forums under different statutes...