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.
Bhupendra N. Patel and Others Vs. Harshavardhan Chokkani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD467; 1999(4)ALT642
1. The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the orders of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (appellate authority) in RA No.126 of 1993 dated 26-2-1997 confirming the order of the learned Principal RentController, Secunderabad in RCNo.189/1988 dated 31-12-1992.2. Certain facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are set up hereinafter.One Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma was the landlord of the premises bearing Municipal No.4-6-241 to 4-6-244 (Old No. 1883), Subhash Road, Subric Street, Secunderabad. A rental agreement was concluded between the landlady and Mr. Harshavardhan Chokkani, the respondent herein on 23-11-1973 wherein one mulgi in the said premises was let out to Mr. Harshavardhan Chokkani for non-residential purpose. Subsequently, in the year 1987 the owner sold away the property to Mr. Babulal N. Patel and Bhupendra N. Patel duly attorning the tenancy in favour o...
Ummadi Subramanyam Vs. Ekka Dhanamma and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD26; 1999(4)ALT706
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet dated 3-2-1999 with regard to the admissibility of the suit document dated 10-3-1984 in OS No.135/96, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed this revision petition before this Court.2. Heard both the Counsel.3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit schedule property under the document in question dated 10-3-1984 from the husband of the first respondent and obtained an un-registered document whereunder he was put in possession of the property. Subsequently, after the death of the executants, the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing the suit - OS No.135/96 to direct the respondents to execute a regular sale-deed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The document being an un-registered document, the respondents raised an objection that it is not admissible in evidence as the same is required to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The ...
Aparna Agencies, Hyderabad Vs. P. Sudhakar Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD16; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)303; 2000CriLJ1005
1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant in CC No. 100 of 1997 on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 23-3-1998. The parties will be referred to as complainant and accused.2. The complainant is a dealer in steel scrap for re-rolling, melting and M.S. Flats, angles, TOR Steel etc. He supplied the iron and steel items of various specifications as required by the accused and raised various bills. The accused paid a sum of Rs. 12,94,000/- as part-payment, the last payment of Rs.3 lakhs being on 14-12-1996. The accused was due to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,5i,875.25 ps. as on 15-12-1996. He issued a cheque bearing No.646517, dated 1-1-1997 for the said amount drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Kavadiguda Branch, Secunderabad. When it was presented in the bank it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. It was brought to the notice of the accused and at his request, the complainant represented the cheque once again in h...
Union of India, Chief Post Master-general, Hyd. and Others Vs. E. Puru ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD29; 1999(4)ALT593
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Thiswrit petition has been filed questioning the order dated 9-9-1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.687 of 1998.2. The matter relates to recruitment to the post of Extra Departmental BranchPost Master, for short 'ED BPM', at Mominkalan Branch Office, R.R. District. For recruitment to the said post several qualifications are mentioned like age, educational residence etc. The other conditions are that the candidate should have adequate means of livelihood so as to be able to man the post of ED BPM. That is contained in Section IV, Clause (3) of Service Rules for Postal ED Staff, which is as under:'Income and ownership of property:The person who takes over the agency (ED SPM/ED BPM) must be one who has an adequate means of livelihood. The person selected for the post of ED SPM/ED BPM must be able to offer space to serve as the agency premises for postal operations. The premises must be such as will serve as a small postal office with provisi...
J. Pullaiah Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD60; 1999(5)ALT400
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Ms. Jyothi Kiran took notice for respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is currently serving as Conductor in the establishment of APSRTC. On certain alleged misconduct, departmental enquiry was initiated by issuing charge memo. The Enquiry Officer has already conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. On receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority considering the same, issued second show cause notice proposing the petitioner's removal from the service of APSRTC as disciplinary measure. The second show cause notice is dated 3-7-1999. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.3. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would highlight certain irregularities and illegalities that have crept into the enquiry and on that count, appeal to the Court to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon the contentions touching irregularities an...
S. Mahipal Reddy Vs. Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD363; 2000(1)ALT637
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Smt.Nanda Ramachander Rao took notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner currently is serving as Conductor in the APSRTC. Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and the charge-sheet was issued to him on 19-5-1999. On the same day, a separate order (suspension order) was issued placing the petitioner under suspension pending departmental enquiry. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the charge-sheet dated 19-5-1999 and the suspension order dated 19-5-1999.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the validity of the charge-sheet as well as the suspension order would contend that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (CC&A;) Conduct Regulations as well as the Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation (CC&A;) Regulations are not yet published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the...
Chinta Lava Kumar Vs. G. Visweswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD605
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 17-1-1990 passed in OP No.45 of 1986 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, for not granting the relief prayed for in the petition, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent has not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case. He further contends that it is clear from Ex.A3, wound certificate that the petitioner-appellant has received the injuries in a motor vehicle accident and therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation as claimed by the petitioner. He also contends that the Tribunal should have appreciated the fact that the motorc...
Sk. Mastan Bee Vs. Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD246
ORDER1. This is Public Interest Litigation case taken up at the instance of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Aid and Advice Board, Hyderabad.2. Smt. S. K. Mastan bee, wife of late Sheik Abdul Quadir, is the petitioner herein. Her husband joined in the service of the South Central Railway on 12-12-1964 as a Gangman and was working at Bitragunta. Undisputedly the post of Gangman is pensionable post. On 4-11-1969 the petitioner's husband was examined by the Divisional Medical Officer, Vijayawada,to ascertain whether he was medically fit to render further service under the Railways. The Divisional Medical Officer after examining him declared that he was unfit for any further service under the Railways. He gave a certificate to that effect. Prior to this, the petitioner's husband was on leave.3. According to the petitioner, her husband died while on medical leave on 21-11-1969. It appears that the petitioner was paid gratuity amount of Rs.420/- during 1970. According to the Railways, that is ...
Macha Sambasiva Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD249; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)326
ORDER1. This Court passed an order on 13th October, 1998 which is reproduced below :'A complaint has been registered against the petitioners on 3-4-98. The petitioners seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest also took a plea that the concerned police officers are forcing the first petitioner to have compromise with his father-in-law and pay Rs.50,000/- to him. They are not formally arresting him, but keeping him in custody. Therefore, the concerned Police Officer was asked to file a reply affidavit. The Police Officer concerned filed a counter-affidavit in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him. A reply has also been filed in which it is stated that the petitioner No.1 was kept in custody from 14-7-1998 to 1-8-98. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to get the matter inquired into (a) whether the petitioner No.1 was kept in wrongful confinement by the concerned Police Officer from 14-7-98 to 1-8-98; (b) whether the Police Officers tried to coerce the pet...
Gunda Prabhakar Vs. Gunda Padma Alias Padmavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD257; 1999(4)ALT740; II(1999)DMC743
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet dated 5-3-1999 passed in IA No.J65 of 1997 in OP No.27 of 1996 granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to the respondents herein pending the above OP filed by her for relief of divorce.2. As caveat was filed in the matter, notice of the petition was given to the caveator for whom Mr. K. Venkat Reddy filed his appearance.3. When the Revision Petition came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed for interim suspension of the order under revision. Under these circumstances, both sides agreed that the CRP may be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.4. Heard both sides.5. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitionerSri C. Ramachandra Raju is that the quantum of interim maintenance ordered by the learned Senior Civil Judge is not based on any material as to the income of the petitioner herein (respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »