Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Apsrtc Vs. Secretary to Govt. Transport Dept., and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD289; 1999(6)ALT558
ORDER1. A declaration, that the action of the respondents viz., Transport Department, Government of A.P., the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, West Godavari and Cuddapah Districts, in indiscriminately granting temporary permits, contrary to the provisons of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the conditions of various notified schemes of the State Transport Undertaking in the Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Cuddapah, is arbitrary and illegal, is sought by the APSRTC. The facts and contentions urged are summarised as hereunder:(a) About 95% of the routes in the State have been nationalised. Consequently as many as 16,500 buses are plying as stage carriages transporting more than 1.11 crore of people each day. (b) The petitioner is plying its buses on the notified routes as also on the non-notified routes as per the schemes and on the basis of need, providing adequate transport facility to...
Kola Mahalaxmi Vs. Agent to Government, Khammam and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD718; 1999(6)ALT174
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law. Hence I am disposing of both of them by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, f will first deal with WP No.15544 of 1989 and in view of the legal position ascertained in this writ petition, I propose to dispose of other writ petition in WP No. 5684 of 1988.2. WP No.15544 of 1989 is filed by a non-tribal being aggrieved by the order dated8-3-1989 passed by the Agent to Government, Khammam on CMA No.1 of 1989. By the impugned order, the appellate Court confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha dated 20-5-1988 passed on Case No 417/88/PNK. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the petitioner purchased the land on 11-3-1963 through an unregistered sale deed and eversince he lias been in possession. He further submitted that the said sale deed dated 11-3-1963 wa...
Sri Satya Winery and Distillery (P) Ltd., Hyd. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD578
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J1. Though these Tax Revision Cases were heard and orders were dictated on 30-6-1999 in the open Court, as certain decisions were not considered these tax revision cases are reposted for hearing and heard on 17-9-1999 and disposed of by this common order.2. This Batch of lax revision cases arc at the instance of the manufacturer for different assessment years. Three points are raised in this Batch of revision cases viz., (1) jurisdiction of the revisional authority; (2) whether the excise duty paid by the purchasers should be included in the total turnover of the manufacturer; and (3) service charges are to be treated as part of the turnover.3. At the time of hearing it is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the 1st and 3rd issues are not seriously contested, except in the case of TRC No.46 of 1991. Therefore, these two issues are held against the petitioners, except in the case of TRC No.46 of 1991 where the issues are contested.4. Com ing...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Vizianagaram Vs. Government of A.P. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD550
ORDER1. In this Batch of writ petitions, except in WP Nos. 15707 of 1989 and 1866 of 1989, in all the remaining writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of G.O. Ms. No.11, dated 12-2-1990, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Contract Labour Abolition Act') abolishing the contract labour in all operation of canteens required to be provided under the Factories Act, 1948. In WP No. 15707 of 1989, G.O. Ms. No.287, dated 7-5-1981, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act is challenged. By this notification, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has abolished the employment of contract labour in certain processes of operations in the establishments/factories, in which the contract labour are employed, generally in all the establishments/factories in the Slate i.e., the contract labour engaged in watch and ward ...
M. Vishnuvardhana Reddy Vs. Saya Nagappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD798
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-1999 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool on EA No.563 of 1999 in EP No.316 of 1997 in OS No.256 of 1996. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor inEA No.563 of 1999 to determine the disobedience of the decree in terms of Section 47 of CPC is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner after notice look adjournment for one year for filing counter and he did not file counter. Consequently vide order dated 14-10-1998 in EP No.316 of 1997 in OS No.256 of 1997, the Court below directed detention of the petitioner -judgment-debtor for disobedience of the decree of the Court.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 47 of CPC and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments reported in Thakur Prasad v. Kasturi Narain...
Kavali Hanumanna Vs. Huzurappa and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD815; 1999(6)ALT626
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mahabnbnagar dated 8-4-1985 passed in AS No.32 of 1982. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Narayanapet dated 20-1-1982 passed in OS No.41 of 1980. In other words, the trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs suit and on an appeal filed by the defendants, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and consequently dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence, the plaintiff is now before this Court in this second appeal.2. The learned senior Counsel Sri T. Veerabhadriah strenuously contended that the appellate Court has given a finding without considering certain material evidence on record. He further submitted that the appellate Court did not take into account the decree in favour of the plaintiff dated 7th Shererwar 1355 fasli passed in OS 214/1/ 1355 Fasli by the Di...
Vardhaneedi Pondu Venkatachala Prabhakar and Others Vs. Bunga Santhi K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD91
1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 19-10-1990 in OP No.201 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.2. The respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) filed the OP against the appellants and respondents 5 to 9 and others seeking a compensation of Rs.60,000/- due to the death of Bunga Jayaraju (deceased) aged about 20 years earning Rs.800/- per month as driver, on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor with trailor bearing No.AAW 3294 and APW 7720, by the deceased 2nd respondent in the OP who is the husband of 5th respondent, and father of respondents 6 to 8 (hereinafter called the driver). Appellants were added as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in OP, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, who died during the pendency of the OP before the Tribunal. Respondents 5 to 8 were added as legal representatives of the deceased driver whoalso died duri...
M.A. Rasheed and Others Vs. Commissioner for Co-operation, A.P., Hyd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD128; 1999(6)ALT9
ORDER1. This common judgment shall dispose of WP Nos.11075 and 11270 of 1999 as the question of law that arises is the same in both the writ petitions. WP No.11270 of 1999 is filed for declaration that the orders of the second respondent in proceedings No.B5/398/1/99-2000 dated 15-5-1999 as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and violative of principals of natural justice and violative of provisions of Rule 73(vi) and 73(ix) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operativa Societies Rules (hereinafter called as 'the Rules') and to set aside the same. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential relief td set aside the orders in Proceedings No.B5/3 99/99-2000 dated 15-5-1999 wnerein the respondents 4 and 5 were promoted to the cadre of Assistant General Managers in Karimnagar District Co-operative Central Bank (hereinafter called as the Bank). The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is working as Manager with effect from 14-4-1980 in the Bank. In the provisional integrated inter se se...
PenguIn Textiles Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD517; 1999(6)ALT72
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. ADivision Bench of this Court consisting of Y. Bhaskar Rao, J., (as he then was) and Nasir. J, having found an apparent conflict of views in two decisions -- Bharath Litho Press v. State of A.P., 67 STC 48 and CMP No.17575 of 1992 in TRC No.78 of 1992, referred the question at issue to a Full Bench. The question as formulated by their Lordships in the opening sentence i.e., 'whether a Revision lies to the High Court under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act against the order of the Appellate Tribunal' seems to be an accidental slip. It does not reflect the correct issue. The correct issue as indicated by the learned Judges in the same reference order is 'whether the High Court has got power to grant stay of collection of the tax decided by the original authority and confirmed by the appellate authority; or whether the High Court has no power except ordering for payment of instalments.'2. We would like to re-cast the question little differe...
Kurakula Sanyasi and Others Vs. Bhavisetty Sankara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD710; 1999(5)ALT475
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order in IA No.357 of 1998 in OS No. 202 of 1992.2. The said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the suit to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to examine two more witnesses on his behalf. The said prayer was granted by the lower Court.3. The reason for filing the application to reopen the matter as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition shows that the plaintiff could not secure the presence of the witnesses as they were not available and since the said witnesses were available end were ready to depose on his behalf and their examination is essential and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.4. As could be seen from the record, the matter is of the year 1992; trial was completed and the same was being adjourned from time to time for arguments. At that stage, the said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the matter. Except stating that the witnesses were not available at the time of trial, no other reason wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »