Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Keshav Memorial Educational Society, Hyderabad Vs. Government of A.P., ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD338
ORDER1. This is yet another case to establish the fact that the Executive in the State is passing orders without application of mind and without reference to the rule position whereby the lives of the citizens of this Country are made miserable.2. Chapter XIV of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') deals with payment of salaries and allowances to and disciplinary action against employees of private institutions. Under Section 79 of the Act, no teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The proviso to Section 79 says that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed under this sub-section against an employee other than an employee of a minority educational institution without the prior approval of suc...
Adilakshmi Construction, Kakinada Vs. Chief Engineer (Randb), Building ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD480
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Transport, Roads and Buildings.2. This writ petition is filed to declare the 2nd item in the letter Roc. No.6232/ AEE4/96, dated 20-6-1998 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and to direct the respondents to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner.3. The 2nd item of the said letter reads as under :'You are also requested to immediately furnish the experience certificate duly countersigned by next higher authority to the certificate issuing authority.'4. The petitioner is a Class-II Contractor registered on 31-1-1998 and entitling ro tender for the civil work above Rs 40.00 lakhs and upto Rs.1.00 crore. The 2nd respondent issued the tender notification in tender notice No.7/HD/98-99 dated 20-5-1998 calling for the tenders from the Class-I Civil (Buildings) contractors or Class-II Civil (Buildings) Contractors registered under the relevant Government Orders, who are eligible, to apply for the ...
Ch. Rachajyothi Vs. Director Generall, Geological Survey of India, Cal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD404; 1999(4)ALT636
ORDER1. The callous and arrogant attitude of the State Government is adequately betrayed by the stand taken in this writ petition.2. The petitioner claims that she belongs 10 'Konda Reddy' community which is a Scheduled Tribe (ST). She was born to a 'Konda Reddy' community mother from a Brahmin father. The marriage never succeeded and the petitioner was brought up by the mother in her parents' house. The petitioner was always treated and brought up from the beginning as of 'Konda Reddy' community. This fact was confirmed by earlier dispute which reached the High Court in WP No.2560 of 1978. The petitioner had then challenged the action of the employer-in initiating proceedings for removing the petitioner from service on the ground that she had suppressed the true caste of her and had falsely represented that she belonged to'Konda Reddy' Tribe and had taken advantage of the reservation. The State-Government of A.P., representated by Secretary, Social Welfare Department of Government, wa...
P. Adinarayana Others Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD58; 1999(5)ALT404
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed by 44 petitioners seeking an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising their services in the Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise their services and to pay all the attendant benefits from the date of their completion of 240 days in the Corporation.2. In the affidavit of the first petitioner it is stated that all the petitioners were appointed in the Corporation on casual basis, some of them as Work Inspectors on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,840/- per month, some as Man Mazdoors on a pay of Rs.1,081/- per month and they have been issued necessary identity cards. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer (Civil) Urban has the control and jurisdiction of the civil works in the twin cities and maximum work is being extracted from the petitioners in ...
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ongole Vs. Tumu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC85; 2001ACJ542; 1999(6)ALD256; 1999(5)ALT337
ORDERT. CH. Surya Rao, J.1. The insurer, the New India Assurance Company through its Divisional Manager, Ongole, preferred all these Appeals against the common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court (reported in : 1998(5)ALD600 , Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Tumu Gurava Reddy).2. All these claims arise out of a single accident. Some of the claimants are the injured and some are the legal representatives of the deceased who died a premature death in the accident that occurred on 18-2-1995. The 1st respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle viz., the Tractor attached with a Trailer bearing No.AP-27/ T-4173 and AP-27/T-4174 respectively that was involved in the accident.3. Briefly stated the facts are thus: About 23 persons were sitting in the trailor of the tractor at the relevant time, and they were being taken to attend to the cooli work in the agricultural fields of the 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle. On account of the rash and negli...
Kwality Construction Engineers Vs. Chief Engineer, Government of A.P. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD217; 1999(4)ALT389
ORDER1. The refusal of the respondent Corporation to issue Tender Schedule to the petitioner's firm on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill Condition No.5 of the tender notice is assailed in this writ petition. The controversy brought before the Court turns around the question whether the petitioner had executed similar group of works for Rs.120 (One Hundred and Twenty) lakhs or similar single work for Rs.30 (Thirty) lakhs during the financial years 1996-97,1997-98 and 1998-99. If the Court were to answer this question positively, the refusal to issue tender schedule to the petiiioner should be held to be unjustified and illegal, and on the other hand if the Court were to answer this question negatively, the petitioner cannot seek mandamus.2. The factual matrix of the case be noted briefly as under :The respondent Corporation issued Tender Notification No.4/APHMHIDC/99-2000, dated 9-6-1999 calling for tenders for award of two items of works. This case relates to item (2) work...
Y. Rama Rao Vs. Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue (Ct) Dept., Hyder ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD278; 1999(4)ALT241
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J1. The petitioner who served the State Government as Commercial Tax Officer and retired on 31-3-1995 on attaining the age of superannuation has filed this writ petition seeking judicial review of the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.4262 of 1997.2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No.2) dated 20-3-1995 whereby the Commissioner framed charges and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and also the revised charge memo dated 21-11-1995. The petitioner sought for a further relief to release all the pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his retirement. Incidentally, the power of the Commissioner to appoint a Second Enquiry Officer on receipt of the first enquiry report substantially absolving the petitioner was put in issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while upholding the validity of the second enquiry and thereby declining to inter...
Bhimavarapu Venkaiah and Another Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kotha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD219
ORDER1. One acre 38 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No.363 and Sy. No.364 of Singareni village and Mandal is an inam land governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Late Sri Kongara Naraycma was admittedly the inamdar of the subject land. The father of the first petitioner purchased one acre of land in the year 1969 under an unregistered sale deed and lie subsequently purchased the remaining 38 guntas of land by way of registered sale-deed dated 5-2-1970. The second petitioner herein subsequently purchased the entire land by way of unregistered sale-deed dated 18-12-1989, and the records placed before the Court disclose that from the date of the purchase of the lands, the father of the first petitioner and after his demise, the first petitioner had been in continuous possession of the subject land till the first petitioner alienated the subject land in favour of the second petitioner in the year 1989. The first peti...
Barnala Lakshmana Rao Vs. Sarnala China Jamalayya and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD429; 1999(4)ALT581
ORDER1. The orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, on the Memo, filed by the respondent herein with regard to eschewing the evidence relating to PW2, has led to the filing of the present revision under Section 115 of CPC.2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the respondent filed a suit in OS No.99/92 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, for a permanent injunction. Written statements were filed and issues were also framed by the Court. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff PW1 was examined in chief and he was also cross-examined on behalf of the defendant-petitioner herein. The second witness on behalf of the plaintiff was examined in Chief as PW2 on 26-2-1998. However, despite several adjournments, the plaintiff was unable to procure the presence of PW2 for cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner-defendant herein. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent presented a Memo, before the Court below on 2-7-1998 ...
Matti Basaweswara Rao Vs. Arza Veeraiah and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD237; 1999(4)ALT234
1. These two appeals and cross-objections arise out of a common judgment in OS No.8 of 1995 and OS No.2 of 1995 dated 15-4-1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Avanigadda. The appellant in AS No.2901 of 1996 is the defendant No.2 in OS No.8 of 1995 and the respondent No.1 (plaintiff in OS No.8 of 1995) filed cross objections. The appellant in AS No.30 of .1997 is the plaintiff in OS No.2 of 1995, who was defendant No.2 in OS No.8 of 1995. The defendant No.4 in OS No.2 of 1995 is the defendant No.1 in OS No.8 of 1995. Defendants 1 to 3 in OS No.2 of 1995 are not parties to OS No.8 of 1995.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in OS No.2 of 1995.3. The suit OS No.2 of 1995 is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20-3-1979 executed bydefendants 1 and 2 executed in favour of Defendant No.4. The plaintiff claimed that defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are the owners of the suit schedule property....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »