Andhra Pradesh Court March 2000 Judgments

Sri G. Anjaiah Vs. the State of A.P. Anti Power theft Squad, A.P.S.E.B ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)602; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)382; 2000CriLJ2568

ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 394/99 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hydria in which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910.2. Heard Mr. K.Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even according to the version of the prosecution, as stated in the charge sheet, the inspection of the petitioner's meter was conducted on 14-7-1994 and it was during this inspection that the theft of electricity in respect of the electricity connection of the petitioner at his shop was detected and the charge sheet has been taken cognizance of by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hydria on 20-9-1999 which is beyond the period of limitation enacted in Section 468 Cr.P.C.4. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, seeks to con...

Y. Sreedhar Vs. the Authorised Signatory, Kinetic Lease and Finance Lt ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.D. No. 126/1998 aggrieved by the dismissal of his C.D. by the Chittoor District Forum by its order dated 3.11.1999. The respondents are the opposite parties in that C.D. The respondents received notice and the first respondent is represented by its Counsel Mr. P.K. Arjun and we heard him at length. 2. This is a case which typifies the manner in which small consumers are harassed by hire purchase companies and finance companies. The first respondent is Kinetic Lease and Finance Ltd., Pune and the second respondent is the dealer of the first respondent at Tirupathi. The basic facts are not in dispute. The complainant purchased a Luna Super from the second respondent at Tirupathi for Rs. 13,780/- under Hire Purchase Agreement No. HP96H0002620. He had to pay the amount in 10 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,378/-. Advance post dated cheques were taken from the complainant by the respondents. After the last...

Bagh Lingamapalli HiG-ii Flats (SFHS) Allottee's Association, Hyd. Vs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD743; 2000(2)ALT473

ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. These writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeks to challenge the common order dated 17-4-1998 passed by the leaned single Judgein Writ Petition Nos.9869 of 1997, 25037 of 1997 and Batch.2. The respondent in Writ Appeal No. 999 of 1998 is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9869 of 1997. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.901 of 1998 is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.25037 of 1997. The petitioners in these two writ petitions challenged the escalation and revision of cost of flats offered for sale to them by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, which is respondent in these writ petitions, under self financing scheme. The learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal, while partly accepting the contentions of the petitioners/ allottees, scaled down the cost to some extent under some components of cost and refused to interfere in respect of other components. Not satisfied with this partial scaling down, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.25037 of ...

Gangaram Kandaram Vs. Sunder Chikha AmIn and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD824; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)625; 2000(2)ALT448

ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J 1. The 1st respondent in this appeal is the writ petitioner and the 7th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ appeal. For the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to in this appeal as arrayed in the writ petition.2. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.7561 of 1997 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents I to 6 in registering crimes under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in FIRs 14/97, 137/97 and.77/97 as illegal and quash the investigation initiated under the said FIRs. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by an order dated 6-8-1997 and quashed the FIRs and the petitioner, who was in judicial custody, was set at liberty.3. Questioning the said order of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the 7th respondent in the writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court while staying the impugned judgment by order dated 1-10-1997 to the effect tha...

S. Abdul Razack Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Kollur and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD259; 2000(3)ALT547

ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J 1. This appeal is directed against the decretal order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kumool in OP No.60 of 1988 dated 22-4-1993.2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows: An extent of Ac.10-71 cents in S.Nos.373/lA, 373/1C and 373/3 situate at Kallur village was acquired for the purpose of house sites to the weaker sections of the society by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'the Act'). The appellant and the second respondent filed their claims statements pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. The Wakf Board filed a claim statement stating that the entire property stands registered as wakf land of Budda Buddi Mosque in the village account No. 10( 1) of Kallur village under the control and administration of A.P. State Wakf Board. The Mutavallis or Inamdars do not have any alienable rights in the said land, as it is a service inam land grante...

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyd. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Private ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD611; 2000(3)ALT328; [2000(86)FLR260]; (2000)IILLJ709AP

ORDERA. Gopala Reddy, J.1. As these three appeals raise common questions of law and issues, we dispose them of by this common judgment.2. LPA Nos.296 and 310 of 1992 are filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') against the order passed by the learned single Judge in CMA Nos.1381 and 1380 of 1988 respectively, whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the orders passed by Employees' Insurance Court in EI Cases.3. Andhra Prabha Private Limited, M/s. Raasi Cements Limited and M/s. Samrat International Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the employers') filed EI cases before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') seeking a declaration that the apprentices/trainees are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act, and as such, the employer is not liable to pay any contributions. The Insurance Court after hearing both sides and taking into consideration...

Barusoru Beeraiah Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD793; 2000(2)ALT232; [2000(86)FLR264]

ORDER1. The point that fails for consideration and decision in both the writ petitions is substantially similar. Hence, both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions were initially appointed as Badlies to work in Stores on a 'piece-rate' in the year 1990. When they were serving as Badlies in the establishment of the respondent-company they were appointed as 'General Mazdoors' in 'Category-I' by issuing office order dated 1-3-1996 with retrospective effect that is with effect from 1-9-1995, but allowing monetary benefits only with effect from 1-1-1996. After so appointing the petitioners as 'General Mazdoors' in Category-I', they were posted to work at Area Stores, RKP. They were appointed as General Mazdoors vide office order dated 1-3-1996 subject to the petitioners undergoing successful probation period. On completion of ...

T.M.T. (India) Limited Vs. Parameswara Traders

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)681

ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. The petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 413 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool in which the petitioners herein are the accused and they are sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sesha Sai cited two grounds for quashing the proceedings. It is firstly contended that there is no sufficient averment in the complaint that the cheque in question was issued for discharging legally enforceable liability and as such the requirement under Section 138 of the Act has not been complied with. The second contention is that the cheque in question itself was obtained from the Works Office of the petitioner-accused and there was no authority to hand over that cheque to the de facto complainant. It is further contended that at any rate before the cheque was presented in the...

Vasamsetti Dhanalakshmi Vs. Kadiyala Chandra Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2006AP347

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Udaya Bhasker, the learned Counsel representing appellant and Mr. T.V.S. Prabhaker Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondents.2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 67/92 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, had preferred this appeal. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit praying for the relief of specific performance on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 8-10-1990 and for other appropriate reliefs. The learned Judge on the strength of respective pleadings of the parties, settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and D. W. 1 and ultimately decreed the suit for specific performance with costs and aggrieved by the same, the appeal had been preferred.3. Sri Udaya Bhasker, the learned Counsel, representing the appellant would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge totally erred in granting the relief as prayed for and had pointed out to the evidence of P.W.I, P...

Dr. P. Jyothi and Another Vs. Registrar, Ntr University of Health Scie ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD730; 2000(2)ALT547

ORDER1. The NTR University of Health Sciences conducted PG Medical Entrance Test in accordance with Section 3 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 ('the Act' for brevity) and the Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the powers under Sections 15 and 3 of the Act. These Rules made in G.O. Ms. No.260, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E2), dated 10-7-1997 are called Andhra Pradesh Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 ('the Rules' for brevity).2. The 1st petitioner appeared for the PG Entrance Test and she was admitted in two years PG Diploma course in Gynecology and Obstetrics in the 2nd respondent-College. She completed all the formalities and executed a bond as required under the Rules in November, 1999. The 2nd petitioner also appeared for PG Medical Entrance Test and could secure a seat in PG Diploma in the same subject. She also completed the formalities and executed the bo...