Andhra Pradesh Court August 1999 Judgments

B. Narasimha Reddy Vs. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any good basis for interfering with the order of the Chittoor District Forum dismissing the complaint C.D.C. No. 198/1998 by order dated 23.3.1999 which is sought to be questioned by the complainant in this appeal. The complainant, who is the appellant in this appeal, is present in person. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Cuddapah, who is the respondent in this appeal and opposite party in that C D C , is represented by Mr. G. Bhaskar Rao, Enforcement Officer at Tirupati working in the Provident Fund Department. The appellant/complainant states that he could not attend the Chittoor District Forum on 23,3.1999 when his C.D.C. was posted because he was not well. He has produced the doctor certificate to that effect. However the District Forum, going through the papers which were before it, dismissing the complaint after hearing the opposite party observing as follows : Heard the respondent. Exs. B1 and B2 marked. Exs. B1 and B2 show...

S. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD398; 1999(5)ALT47

ORDER1. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Management of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, for short, 'the TRANSCO' is justified and acted legally in seeking to disqualify the petitioner at the threshold of the awarding of the work contracts covered by package No.WB/APSEB/TR/RS-20 on the ground that the petitioner lacks the prescribed experience.2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition be stated briefly as under: The petitioner and one Sri P. Radha Krishna Reddy, hereinafter referred to as 'PRR', for the sake of brevity, constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Aditya Transmission on 20-11-1991 with equal shares. The partnership firm was involved in the execution of the work of erection of the transmission lines mainly of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, for short 'APSEB', the predecessor of the TRANSCO which came into being in the place of APSEB with effect from 1-2-1999. Due to some pe...

N.V.S. Chalapathi Rao Vs. Punjab National Bank, Government of India an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD250; 1999(5)ALT99

ORDER1. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 20-03-1991 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The petitioner prays for a direction, directingthe respondents herein to reinstate him into service.2. It may be necessary to notice few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed in the Officer Cadre in the Punjab National Bank. He worked as Branch Manager at Nellore from 1979 till March, 1982. Later on he was promoted as Manager in the Zonal Office at Madras.3. The petitioner herein was served with a charge-sheet on 18-4-1983 for the alleged serious lapses committed by him white working as Manager, Branch Office, Nellore, in the matter of sanctioning and conducting of loan accounts of M/s. Sulochana Hatcheries. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge-sheet dated 18-4-1985, on 31-5-1985 denying the charges levelled against him; an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the ...

Eradala Tayaramma and Another Vs. Eradala Ramakrishnayya and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD540

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-6-1989 in OPNo.32 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, dismissing the above said OP on the ground that the previous findings in OS No.316/70 dated 30-10-1974 against which AS No.400 of 1975 was dismissed by the High Court which was filed by the same parties in the above suit and LPA No.94 of 1978 was also dismissed by the High Court, are thus binding and therefore, the above judgment operates as res judicata in the proposed suit of petitioners, the petitioners have no cause of action to file the suit after the disposal of the previous litigation in the High Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has further observed that the present petition is abuse of process of law.2. The facts of the case are that the said OP was filed under Order 33, Rule 1 CPC, to permit the petitioners, who are mother and daughter, to file the suit as indigent persons on the ground that they do not possess any properties except those mentione...

Shaik Ghouse Mohideen Vs. Punagani Erikalamma Alias Settamma and Other ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD604; 1999(5)ALT572

ORDER1. The Order in IA No.163 of 1995 in AS No.4 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, dated 13-2-1996 refusing amendment of written statutory under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, is assailed in this CRP.2. The facts in brief are that the revision petitioners are defendant Nos.2 to 7 and 9 in OS No.87 of 1985 and they sought for an amendment of written statement to enable them to take the plea of adverse possession and that the suit is not maintainable as the suit schedule is incorrect and the property belongs to the Government, who is a necessary party.3. The petition is resisted by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that the new pleas completely alter the nature of the defence and that there are no bona fides in the proposed amendment. The learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the rival contentions, held that the plea sought to be taken is entirely a new plea which will change the nature and character of the defence and accordingly dismissed the petition. Henc...

General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited Vs. Industrial T ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD416; 1999(5)ALT326

ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 1-3-1990 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.27 of 1989 filed in ID No.39 of 1987 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. By that order, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, has held that the complaint filed by the second respondent-workman under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') is maintainable and that the second respondent is a 'workman concerned' within the meaning of that term used in Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, in this case, the question as to which workman can be said to be a 'workman concerned' within the meaning of that term used in Section 33(2) of the Act and whether the second respondent could be treated as a 'workman concerned' arises for decision.2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, in brief, be stated as under: The second respondent, namely, Sri P. Raghuramulu was initially appointed as General Mazdoor in the establishment of the Singa...

Vellalacheruvu Fishermen Cooperative Society, Prakasam Dist. and Anoth ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD657

ORDER1. The issue that arises for consideration in CC No.765 of 1998 and WP Nos.34994 of 1998 being one and the same, they can be disposed of by a common order.2. Vellalacheruvu Fishermen Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') represented by its ex-President, Angalakudithi Koteswara Rao, Vellalacheruvu and Meda Anjaiah, ex-Secretary of the Society filed CC No.765of 1998 by contending that the order of this Court dated 1-5-1998 in WP No.16419 of 1996 has been flouted by the contemnor, official part-time person-incharge and, therefore, he is liable to be punished by this Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The order passed in Writ Petition No.16419 of 1996, dated 1-5-1998 is as hereunder:'The petitioner-Society shall deposit in case Rs.2,00,000/- with the 3rd respondent and shall also furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the Gram Panchayat for the lease year 1996-97 within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde...

Gavi Matt Samsthanam Vs. Danda Narayana Swamy and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD596; 1999(6)ALT800

1. Inspite of service of notices on them, the respondents have not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel to oppose this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This revision is directed againstthe order passed by the lower Court refusing to permit the plaintiff to file, a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit. The suit is filed by Sri Gavi Mutt Samsthanam, Uravakonda, represented by its Manager for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents not to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site. In the written statement filed by them the defendants have, inter alia, questioned the competence of the Manager of the plaintiff-mutt to file the suit. In the proposed rejoinder the plaintiff wanted to explain how the Manager is competent to institute the suit on behalf of the mutt and in what capacity the suit is filed by him. The plaintiff also wanted to re...

Suram Indira Devi Vs. Suram Bhoodevi and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(6)ALD177; 1999(5)ALT745

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff instituted OS No.5 of 1977 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal for partition of plaint 'A' schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of three such shares to the plaintiff.2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal will be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.3. The minor plaintiff Suram Indira Devi represented by their next friend and father Suram Pratap Reddy has instituted the present suit for partition of her 3/4th share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties and also seeking an injunction against defendants 2 and 3 from in any manner interfering with her right in the properties since she was adopted by late Suram Kanakaiah who owned plaint 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and that by virtue of the adoption that took place on 21-4-1969 and also by virtue of Ex.A.20 (will) executed by late Kanakaiah on 17-3-1971 she became entitled to 3/4th share in the...

Kodali Siva Kumar and ors. Vs. Navatha Agro Products (P) Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)1CompLJ381(AP)

ORDERKrishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. This is an application for winding up of the respondent company under Section 433(f) read with Section 439 (1)(c) and (4)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. It is not disputed before me that the respondent company was incorporated as a private limited company on 13.4.1983. The nominal capital of the respondent company is Rs. 30,00,000 divided into 3,000 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each as on 31.3.1994. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the respondent company as on 31.3.1994 was Rs. 12,25,000 divided into 1,225 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Kodali Shiv Kumar, the deceased petitioner No. 1 had 126 equity shares in the respondent company and was a director till his death. The petitioners 2 to 8 are also shareholders holding 418 equity shares in the total equity share capital of Rs. 12,25,000 divided into 1,225 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The first petitioner has expired during the pendency of these proceedings.3. The main object of the ...