Andhra Pradesh Court July 1999 Judgments

N. Sangaiah and Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD213; 1999(4)ALT691

ORDER1. The short but interesting question arises for consideration in this writ petition as to the interpretation of Section 18 and Section 32(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The question that squarely falls for consideration is whether a claimant is not entitled to ask for a reference under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the Court in the absence of a written protest made at the time of receiving of the amount. Before adverting to the said question, the facts in brief may be noticed:The petitioners are all residents of Veltur village and are agriculturists by profession. Their lands were acquired by the State for the purpose of laying pipeline from the Singur project. Necessary notifications and declarations have been issued under the provisions of the Act about which there is no dispute in this case. The Land Acquisition Officer passed a common award dated 29-12-1987 awarding compensation. According to the petitioners, the award is very ...

Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad Vs ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD203; 2000(2)ALT403; [2000(84)FLR971]; (2000)ILLJ376AP

ORDER1. This CMA was filed against the order dated 20-11-1991 in EI Case No.2 of 1989 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court, Hyderabad, wherein it was held that the petitioner in EI Case No.2 of 1989 is not liable to pay contribution on the amounts paid to the hamalis.2. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by the Employees Insurance Courtat Hyderabad is contrary to the provisions of the State Employees Insurance Act. It is further contended that the hamalis come within the definition of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act. Therefore, the order of the Employees Insurance Court that the respondent herein is not liable to pay contribution on the wages paid to the hamalis is liable to be set aside.3. To appreciate his contention, few facts of the case are necessary to be extracted. The respondent Industry, namely Bharat Cement Pipe Industries, was a partnership firm having involved in the manufacturing of cement pipes and the factory is locat...

In Re: Goldstone Softech Ltd.; in Re: Goldstone Engineering Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)1CompLJ388(AP)

ORDERKrishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. These two applications are filed under Section 394 of the Indian Companies Act for approving the scheme of amalgamation of Goldstone Softech Ltd. (for short 'transferor company') with Goldstone Engineering Ltd. (for short 'transferee company').2. The authorised capital of the transferor company is Rs. 25,00,000 divided into 2,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and paid-up capital is Rs. 23,68,000. The transferor company deals in buying, selling, hiring and letting on hire, leasing and taking on lease of office automation equipment, telecommunication equipments, tele-communication test equipment, electronic switching equipment, electronic equipment, computer hardware and software, computer peripherals, printed circuit boards, electronic computer systems, cable television systems, magnetic tapes, electronic control systems, process control systems and spare parts and accessories, etc. While the authorised capital of the transferee company is Rs. 10,00...

S.L. Narayana Vs. L. Shankar Kumar and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALT725

M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The Writ Appeal is preferred against an interim order passed by the learned single Judge confirming the interim order passed earlier.2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal and the writ petition are taken up for hearing on merit.3. The writ petitioner-appellant, who happens to be an advocate and a Member of the Nagar Panchayat, having failed to persuade the Nagar Panchayat to get the advocates of his choice appointed as the Standing Counsel, has chosen the arena of the High Court to take his political vengeance. It is not fair. Courts cannot be permitted to be the playgrounds for settling the scores of the proceeding in the Nagar Panchayat. The writ petition is not the bona fide act of the petitioner.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that solely on the ground that the Advocates had appeared against the Nagar Panchayat, their names were ignored from consideration for appointment as Standing Counsel.5. It is conceded at the Bar that the appoi...

Progressive Constructions Ltd., Hyd Vs. Superintending Engineer, Irrig ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD141; 1999(4)ALT281

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Both the Counsel have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition.2. The petitioner-Progressive Constructions Limited, seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not opening cover-B of the petitioner's bid in respect of Tender NoticeNo.2 CBR/98-99 dated 10-3-1999 on the ground that the petitioner-company is not qualified to bid in accordance with the terms of the tender is irrational arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to direct them to open the bid and evaluate the same along with other tenders.3. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-The matter relates to the construction of Chitravathi Balancing Reservoir near Pamapalli village, (balance work and rectification works) at Cuddapah District.4. The Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Telugu Ganga Project Circle, Cuddapah, issued tender Notification No.2 CBR/98-99 dated 10-3-1...

Arif Abdul Ghani and Others Vs. S. Maheshwar Rao and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD300; 1999(4)ALT306

1. This batch of civil miscellaneous appeals may be disposed of by a common order as they arise out of a common order passed by the learned senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the applications filed by each of the respondents/claim petitioner, purported to have been filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitions filed by them are more or less similar and raise the same question. The learned Judge upheld the plea of the respondents/claim petitioners and their objections for execution of the decree in EP No.41 of 1984. The claim petitions were accordingly allowed. Hence these civil miscellaneous appeals by the Decree holders.2. In all these appeals, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, contends that the trial Court has committed serious errors in allowing the claim petitions filed by the respondents/ claimants. It is submitted that the trialCourt failed to follow the mandatory procedure provided under Order 21, R...

V. Venugopal Vs. State of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD449; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)27; [2000]100CompCas462(AP)

ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.110/98 on the file of the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in which the petitioner herein is the accused.2. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in respect of a handloan obtained by the accused he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2 herein which bounced. A notice as per the complainant has been sent to the accused which was returned with a postal endorsement as 'not claimed returned to the sender.'3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless a notice demanding the amount covered by the cheque bounced is sent to the accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque, no Prosecution can lie against the accused on the ...

Mohd. Khaja MoinuddIn Vs. Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyd. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD46; 1999(5)ALT386

ORDER1. The petitioner is the licensee of the premises to instal and run the telephone booth at Zaheerabad bus station. The premises belongs to the management of the APSRTC. The management of the Corporation has taken steps to call for tenders to grant licence in respect of the above premises beyond 5-8-1999 after the expiry of the existing licence period. At that stage, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner-licencee praying for a declaration that the action of the second respondent in issuing tender notice dated 2-7-1999 is null and void and for a consequential direction to therespondents to grant extension of licence to the petitioner for a further period of two years from 5-8-1999.2. The direction is sought to the respondents to extend the licence for a further period of two years on the basis of a clause incorporated in the agreement dated 5-8-1995 entered into between the parties. The clause given in the above agreement on which the learned Counsel placed reliance to conte...

Rajulapati Sai Prasada Rao Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALT380

ORDERT.Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of the respondents passed in Proceedings No. L1/876(16)/97-RM/WG dated 23-7-1997, whereunder his claim for absorption as the fourth Conductor in APSRTC has been rejected, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Simultaneously, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to appoint him in the Corporation as a Cleaner or in any suitable post.2. According to the petitioner, he worked as a Conductor/Cleaner in the private buses bearing Nos. ABW 7996, AAV 965 and ATW 569, which plied on the routes from Kommara - Venkataramannagudem via T.P. Gudem and Tadepalligudem - Dandagarra via Juvvalapalem and those routes having been subsequently nationalised with effect from 1-10-1988, he lost his employment. It is his further case that as a matter of policy, the Corporation has been absorbing the displaced employees only to rehabilitate them. Since his case was not considere...

Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. S. Kalavat ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nellore being the opposite party in OP No. 555/1995 on the file of Nellore District Forum preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 25.9.1996 passed therein directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC for short) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- under 3 policies viz., No. 651105010 for Rs. 12,000/-, No. 650196069 for Rs. 1 lakh and No. 650196068 for Rs. 1 lakh together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of 3 months after the death of the life assured till the date of realisation and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- within 3 months from the date of the order. 2. The case of the respondent herein who is the complainant before the District Forum is that her late husband Swayampakula Venkata Suryaprakasa Rao obtained 5 insurance policies bearing No. 650515961 for Rs. 25,000/-; No. 651105010 for Rs. 12,000/-; No. 650193678 ...