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.
Peela Pothi Naidu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)763; 2000(2)ALT779
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 is inoperative as having, lapsed on 26-1-1950 and consequently, no proceedings thereunder can be initiated or continued and also to declare the impugned G.O.Rt. Nos. 1137, dated 12-5-1997 and 1314, dated 6-6-1997 and 1721, dated 4-7-1997 as illegal, contrary to law, non est in the eye of law and also violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside all further proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Ordinance'.2. The petitioner is an Advocate practising at Visakhapatnam. He conducted land acquisition cases and in one such case, enhancement was granted, but the same was appealed against before the High Court and lastly in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had granted a conditional stay...
K. Anjemma and Ors. Vs. A.P. Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALT537
ORDERG. Raghuram, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are the employees of the A.P. Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and working either in the administrative department of the Corporation itself or in its units including the printing press administered by the said Corporation. The common refrain of the writ petitioners is that they have been in service for a long time and are being paid salaries on consolidated basis without extending them the benefit of regular scales of pay and continuing them on precarious tenure of service without regularising their services with the consequent benefits thereon. Some of the petitioners of this batch of cases also aver that their initial appointment has been consequent upon a request by the Corporation to the concerned Employment Exchange, sponsorship from the said Employment Exchange and appointment pursuant to such sponsorship and that as a result of these pre-employment procedures having been com...
S. Palakondarayudu Vs. Vice-chairman-cum-managing Director, Apsrtc
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALT230
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor at Tirupathi, made in I.A. No. 1094 of 1993 in O.P. No. Nil of 1993, dated 6-4-1994, in which the Tribunal below has dismissed the petition filed Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act for condoning the delay of five months twenty-one days in presenting the claim petition.2. The petitioner in the Tribunal below filed the original petition, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident on 2-6-1992. As the petition was not filed within the period prescribed Under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, he filed LA. No. 1094/93 for condoning the delay and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal below.3. The grounds mentioned for condoning the delay was that as the petitioner was busy with his business work, by oversight, he could not present the said O.P. in time and the Tribunal held th...
S. Palakondarayudu Vs. Vice-chairman-cum-managing Director, A.P.S.R.T. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1596
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor at Tirupathi, made in I.A. No. 1094 of 1993 in O.P. No. Nil of 1993, dated 6.4.1994, in which the Tribunal below has dismissed the petition filed under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act for condoning the delay of five months twenty-one days in presenting the claim petition.2. The petitioner in the Tribunal below filed the original petition, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident on 2.6.1992. As the petition was not filed within the period prescribed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he filed I.A. No. 1094 of 1993 for condoning the delay and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal below.3. The ground mentioned for condoning the delay was that as the petitioner was busy with his business work, by oversight, he could not present the said O.P. in time and the T...
Mirapa Suguna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD25; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)479; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)198
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is directed against the order in Crl.MP No.1204 of 1999 in PRC No.56 of 1998 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, dated 7-5-1999 refusing to summon three witnesses under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure at the PRC stage.2. The facts relevant to this Criminal Petition are that the petitioner-complainant examined herself as PW1 and she also examined PWs.2 to 5 on her behalf. Her advocate filed a Memo stating that no further witness will be examined. Thereupon, theCourt has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 304, 440, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the respondents-accused. Then the case was posted for orders. At this stage, the petitioner-complainant filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.PC to summon a Doctor, Sub-Inspector of Police and her son by name M. Suresh Kumar, The respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the proceedings are being pro...
S. Anjaneyulu Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Vijayawada
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD55; 1999(4)ALT585
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Sri C. V. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, took notice for the respondent. The writ petition was heard finally with the consentof both the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the year 1993, the respondent issued tender notification calling for tenders to grant licence for allotment of the stall atMachilipatnam Bus-Station to sell soda and cool-drinks. In response to the tender notification, the petitioner applied and the stall was allotted to the petitioner as licensee initially for a period of three years from 15-8-1993 to 14-8-1996. At the request of the petitioner, the licence period was subsequently extended for a further period of three years from 15-8-1996 to 14-8-1999. As on today, the extended period of licence is in currency. When the matter stood thus, it appears that the respondent has issued the tender notification dated 13-7-1999 calling for applications from the eligible persons to allot the same stall for selling soda and cool-drinks ...
Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs. Presiding Officer, Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD52; 1999(4)ALT702
ORDER1. This wit petition is filed questioning the award of the Additional Industrial-cum-Additional Labour Court (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 2-12-1998 made in ID No.22/97 published in G.O. Rt. No.2395, dated 31-12-1998 as illegal and to quash the same.2. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') isaggrieved by the said award, whereunder it was directed to appoint the 2nd respondent-workman afresh as driver after verifying the genuineness of the driving licence submitted by him.3. This Court on 30-4-1999 ordered notice before admission. Today when the matter came up for admission the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has addressed his arguments. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Both the learned Counsel consent for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.4. A few facts which are necessary for disposing of the writ petition are as follows : ...
K. Subhash Chandra Gupta Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD32; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)321
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the order passed in Crl.A.S.R. No.3157/97on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner/accused wasprosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 85(a), 85(e) and 85(g) of Employees State Insurance Act. He was found guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 85(a), and Rs.500/- each for the offences punishable under Section 85(e) and 85(g) of the Act. The petitioner/accused preferred appeal before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The office took objection that appeal lies to High Court under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act and returned the appeal.3. The order is challenged in this Revision.4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents fairly submitted that if any order is passed under Section 85 of the Act, certainly appeal lies to the High Court under Section 82 on substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 82 of the Act itself. If any ord...
Md. Nawab Vs. Licensing Officer and Secretary, Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD69; 1999(4)ALT614
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. The petitioners are the owners of idle vehicles covered by basic contract carriage permits. They challenge the legality of the demand notices issued under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Licencing Officers.2. For the vehicles permitted to carry more than six (6) persons plying as contract carriages with All India Tourist Permits or with the Permits authorising them to operate on intra-State routes i.e., within the State of Andhra Pradesh, the owners have to pay tax at Rs.2,500/- per seat per quarter, excluding the Driver/Conductor. The relevant Entry in the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act is as follows :'(iv) (a) Vehicles permitted to carry more than six personsand plying as contract carriagescovered by All India Tourist Permit issued under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198S for every passenger other than the Driver and Conductor/Attendant which thevehicle is permitted to car...
Yadalla Radha Krishna Murthy Vs. Makam Parthasarathy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD28; 1999(4)ALT741
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah in IA No.133/99 in OS No.301/98 wherein the request of the petitioner to file a rejoinder contraverting some of the allegations made by the defendants in the written statement was rejected the present revision petition is filed.2. Heard both the Counsel.3. The Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application by holding that if permission is given to file a rejoinder an opportunity should be given to the defendants to file an additional written statement and if the defendants take some other plea, can the plaintiff file another rejoinder. The reasoning given by the officer concerned is unheard of. Under Order VI, Rule 5, the Court is expected to permit the parties to file a statement with better particulars of any matter started in any pleading upon the said terms and costs. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner intended to give better particulars of his claim in the light of the averm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »