Andhra Pradesh Court August 1999 Judgments

The South India Surgical Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Tirupathi Diagnostics (P) L ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. FA.IA. SR. No. 1136/1999 is an application made by the appellant in FA. No. 623/1998 for reviewing our order in that FA dismissing it and FA. IA. No. 567/1999 is for condoning the delay in presenting the review petition FA. IA. SR. No. 1136/1999. 2. These applications will have to be dismissed because this Commission does not have the power of review. Power of review has to be conferred on these Tribunals by the statute and no such has been conferred on this Commission. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the Supreme Court held as follows : It is well-settled that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. That decision was followed by another three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and Anr. v. The Speaker and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 703 at pgs. 718 and 722. The National Commission in New India Assurance C...

Y. Nalini Kanth Vs. Controller of Examination, Nampally, Hyderabad and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD452

ORDER1. The petitioner herein is a student of Science group studying in Second Year Intermediate in Nalanda Junior College, Hyderabad. The father of the petitioner initially sworn an affidavit in support of the writ petition filed for a writ of mandamus challenging the action of the respondents debarring him from writing intermediate examinations by order dated 4-11-1997 as illegal arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed WP MP No.31771 of 1998 seeking amendment of the prayer by challenging the impugned order dated 29-6-1998 passed by the respondents cancelling the performance of the candidate at the Intermediate Public Examinations October, 1997 besides debarring him for two subsequent examinations i.e., March 1998 and October, 1998.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without giving him an opportunity to explain his case and was passed without serving a show cause notice which is against to the principle...

Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vs. Mukkam Mayam

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD655; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)532

1. Appellant is the Slate. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-1999 SC No.1 of 1999 (NDPS Act) on the file of the Special Judge, NDPS Act-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam wherein the accused was found not guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act and was acquitted there under.2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 6-11-1999 at 11-00 AM, during the course of the raid conducted by the search party consisting of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalle town PS (PW3), Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalle (PW2) and V. Bheemarao a mediator (PW1) and another mediator and Prohibition andExcise Staff, the accused was found in possession of 3Kgs., of ganja with him and the same was seized by PW3 in the presence of PW2 who is a Gazetted Officer and effected the arrest of accused.3. A charge under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and ...

Tyre Retreading Shop Committee Vs. Apsrtc and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD619; 1999(5)ALT122; (2000)ILLJ438AP

ORDER1. The petitioner-Committee, which is stated to be affiliated to National Mazdoor Union, represents the work-men in Tyre Retracing Unit of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). It is aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 4-5-1992 and 25-5-1992 proposing to recover the wages from the workmen on the ground that they absented, themselves, from work without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The third respondent, however, issued a show-cause notice on 24-4-1992 requiring the workmen to submit their explanationswithin seven days from the date of exhibition of the notice as to why a penal wage cut of eight days in addition to the wage cut for the days of absence should not be imposed and recovered from their salaries for April, 1992, payable in May, 1992. It is alleged in the said show-cause notice that a section of the workers of Tyre Retrading Shop, Golconda Region have absented themselves from work enmass on 13th and 14th of April, 1992 ...

B. Ratnamala Vs. G. Rudramma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD160; 1999(6)ALT59

ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J. 1. This revision is before us on a reference made by our learned brother B.S. Raikote, J., differing with the view taken by another learned single Judge of this Court in M.A. Gafoor v. Mohd.Jani and others, : 1999(1)ALD159 , as to the interpretation of Explanation I to Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act (for shot 'the Act').2. A few facts which are germane for answering the reference are: The petitioner had filed a suit in OS No. 15 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kurnool seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 14-11-1988 which was marked as Ex.A1 during the trial. On the objection taken by the respondent-defendant by filing an application in IA No.232 of 1988 seeking to impound the said doucument and levy stamp duty and penalty as a sale deed under Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court allowed the said application overruling the objection taken by the plaintiff-petitione...

Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(AP)555; [1999]240ITR463(AP)

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.Writ Petitions Nos. 14194 and 14195 of 1999 : 1. The petitioner questions the legality of two similar orders passed by the respondent on February 26, 1999, rejecting the declarations filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), which was introduced by Chapter IV of the Finance Act (Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998), and seeks an order to direct the respondent to 'consider' the declarations filed by the petitioner under Section 88 of the said Act on January 30, 1999. Three reasons are given for rejection of the declarations :'1. There do not exist any arrears on March 31, 1998, as seen from the facts stated above. 2. The appeal said to be pending is on levy of interest, which has been waived. Hence, there is no dispute. 3. The arrear that is sought to be settled relates to the current demand raised on December 31, 1998, which is entirely different from the arrear demand.' 2. The declarations r...

G. Giri Raju Govada Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD256; 1999(6)ALT511

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.24843 of 1998, dated 20-11-1998. By the said order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable inasmuch as the respondents against whom the writ was sought are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a graduate having passed B.E. in II division securing 52.5% marks. The third respondent issued a public notification in 'Employment News 7-13 February, 1998 inviting applications for admission to Post-graduate Diploma in Management and Information Technology (for short 'PGDMIT') which is a 2 year course. The eligibility criteria for admission to the said course is a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering and Master of Computer Applications with atleast 60% aggregate marks for OCs. and 55% marks for SC and ST candidates. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and thou...

P. Purushotham Reddy and Another Vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. Overruled

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD592

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit in OS No.1159 of 1989 on the file of theV Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The plaintiff M/s. Pratap Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed the suit for (1) specific performance of the suit contract by execution of sale within a time to be specified and in default the Court to execute the same or in the alternative to appoint a Receiver on their behalf to execute the sale deed and deliver possession; (2) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to apply to the Government for permission to sell under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and to the Income Tax Authorities for permission to convey or to appoint a Receiver to effectuate the same; (3) in the alternative for compensation of Rs.40,25,000/- under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, or any other relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act; and (4) compens...

itw Signode India Limited Vs. P. Sitaramaraju

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(2000)ACC469; 2001ACJ91; 1999(5)ALD628; 1999(5)ALT646

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 24-4-1992 made in WC Case No.298 of 1989 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ranga Reddy District Zone, under which the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded a sum of Rs.43,382/- towards compensation to the appellant on the basis of his age and directed the opposite party to remit the amount by way of DD.2. The applicant filed the above case claiming compensation for the personal injury received by him due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the opposite party. Theapplicant was employed as production operator with the opposite party and while he was proceeding to the factory to attend to his duties in the first shift around 5.35 a.m. on 20-1-1989, he met with an accident near B.M.F. Belting company, Patancheru and as a result of which, he received fracture to Patela and left Fenural Condilla and sustained injury to knee and he was admitted ...

K. Nirisha and Another Vs. Convenor, Nehru Technological University Hy ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD500

1. These writ petitions raise some common legal issues, which have been answered time and again by this Court and the Apex Court in various decisions to my mind what is required is to apply the said principles to the facts of these cases.2. The substantial issue in these batch of writ petitions is the correctness of some of the key answers provided by the respondent-Convenor, EAMCET, 1999 3. In each of the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the correctness of the answers to some of the questions. On an analysis of all the writ petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Convenor, EAMCET, 1999 agreed that the total number of the disputed questions are '20' though all the 20 questions are not in dispute in each of the writ petitions.4. The system for conducting a common entrance examination for the students seeking admission into various professional courses like Medicine and Engineering has been in vogue in the Stat...