Andhra Pradesh Court March 2000 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.
K. Munilakshmi Vs. Assistant Engineer, (Operation), Aptransco, Chittoo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD809; 2000(2)ALT222
ORDER1. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent on 7-3-1994 for providing electricity service connection to the Submersible Motor erected in the bore well dug in Survey No.26/2 of Theellagundla Palle Village, Devaragudipalli Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Her application was registered and given Registration No.272479, dated 7-3-1994. Admittedly, in pursuance of the application estimate was sanctioned and deposits were collected for Rs.200/- and Rs.480/- towards SC and SD charges respectively on 30-3-1994. However, ultimately no service connection was given to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner, wherein writ of mandamus is sought for declaring the action of the respondents in not providing electricity service connection to the Submersible Motor erected in the bore well dug in Sy.No.26/2 of Thellagundla Palle Village, Devaragudipalli ...
A. Divakrupamani and Another Vs. A. Sakuntala Devi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD754; 2000(2)ALT275
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This appeal lias been directed against an order returning the plaint on the ground that the Court fee which is payable is under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 and not under subsection (2) thereof.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act comes into play when the parties are in joint possession and a fixed Court fee is payable having regard to the valuation and the maximum being Rs.200/-. But, in a matter arising under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, which is on the premise that the plaintiff is not in possession but is seeking for decree of partition and possession, the Court fee payable is according to the valuation of 3/4th of the market value of the share which the plaintiff sought for. The Court of the Chief Judge subsequently has now called upon the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee on the ground that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be in joint pos...
Syed Meiraj Vs. Election Officer and Commissioner, Sherilingampalli, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD127; 2000(2)ALT793
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. The appellant who is one of the aspirants to contest to the ward membership in the ensuing muncipal elections filed his nomination papers for ward number 8 of Serilingampally Municipality in Rangareddy District. Returning Officer, on scrutiny rejected thenomination. Rejection of nomination was impugned in writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Having been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2-3-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in a Batch of writ petitions the appellant seeks to file the present writ appeal.2. This appeal will not detain us any longer in as much as the situation obtaining in this case is squarely covered by specific provisions in the Constitution and the judgments of the Apex Court. Article 243-ZG is apposite here to be considered and reads thus:'243-ZG. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,--(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of se...
Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC475(AP)
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. For the assessment year 1976-77 the petitioner while effecting inter-State sales of cables admittedly included excise duty in the sale bills and collected tax on the sale price including the excise duty, suffered assessment and paid the tax. Almost four years later the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner under the then existing provisions contending that the excise duty was refunded to the buyers on account of the alleged claim made by them. The Deputy Commissioner declined to exercise suo motu revisional power by his order dated May 20, 1982. The Deputy Commissioner found no valid reason for not making the claim before the assessing authority and for keeping quiet all these years. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.2. Before the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court i...
Ami Sanag Micromation Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5043
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. No representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.2. These petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seek quashing of orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cri. M. P. Nos. 910, 912 and 911 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 363, 365 and 364 of 1999 respectively under which a condition for suspending the sentence, the petitioners were directed to deposit part of the fine amount amounting to Rs. 25,000/- immediately and to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and to deposit the balance of fine amount in two equal instalments on the dates mentioned in the order.3. It may be seen that the petitioners have been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the first petitioner-company has been sentenced to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- and in default the 2nd petitioner has been directed to un...
M. Lingamma Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD527b; 2000(2)ALD527b; 2000(2)ALT98; 2000(2)ALT98; [2000(85)FLR545]
ORDER1. The facts I state here below at the outset would themselves indicate the unscrupulous and unfair labour practice resorted to by the management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'APSRTC') against the petitioner, a hapless petty official holding the post of Sweeper.2. The facts are as follows:--The petitioner-lady was appointed as sweeper as far as back on 11-8-1980. After a long lapse of 10 years from the date of her appointment as Sweeper, she was subjected to medical examination in the month of February, 1990 to assess her medical and physical fitness and suitability. The medicalauthority of the Corporation, after examining, found her to be medically and physically fit for the job. When the matter stood thus, on 9-5-1991, the Management of APSRTC without issuing any notice or office order, high-handedly prevented the petitioner from discharging her duty. The petitioner assailed that illegal action in Writ Petition No.6946 of 1991. This Court, pe...
Krishna Vishnu Vs. State Election Commissioner and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD727; 2000(2)ALT570
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents viz., the State Election Commission, and the Election Officer-cum-Commissioner, Kapra Municipality in conducting election to Ward No.24 of Kapra Municipality on 9-3-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the election procedure laid down in A.P. Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1965 (the Election Rules, for brevity) and for a consequential direction to he respondents 1 and 2 to allot the TDP symbol of 'cycle' to the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed nomination for Ward No.24 (SC General) of Kapra Municipality. He claims that the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) nominated him and also given B Form after taking allegiance to the party. On 22-2-2000, after scrutiny of the nominations, the 2nd respondent, according to the petitioner, included the name of the petitioner as one of the contestants having party affiliation to TDP. On 25-2-2000,...
B. Nagamma Vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD18; 2000(3)ALT763
ORDER1. The petitioner is the widow of late Sri B. Anjaiah. The said B. Anjaiah died in harness on 13-6-1996 while serving as Sweeper. Immediately after the death of the said B. Anjaiah, the petitionersubmitted an application to the third respondent requesting the latter to appoint her to the post of Sweeper or Cleaner under the scheme providing appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's application was forwarded to the second respondent by the third respondent. The third respondent by the impugned order dated 12-8-1998 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that illiterate persons are not eligible for the post of Sweeper. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order issued by the third respondent dated 12-8-1998.2. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument is the hardship of the petitioner. It is well settled by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court that the Court while considering t...
Vasavi Kanyaka Seva Trust, Ramanthapur Vs. District Collector, R.R. Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD115; 2000(2)ALT645
1. These two revisions are field against the orders allowing the applications seeking to implead the respondent No.3 in [A No.1030 of 1999 and also the main suit OS No.348 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, North and East, Ranga Reddy District.2. In support of the applications, it was claimed that the respondent No.3 herein is a Welfare Association in respect of the area which covers the subject matter of the suit and it was further alleged that the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner, a trust, is not valid and even the claim of the defendants on the basis of the allotment is not correct. Since the respondent No.3 has taken up the welfare projects like drinking water scheme etc., it is a proper and also a necessary party to the suit.3. The said orders were sought to be attacked on the main ground that the suit being one for simplicter injunction, no application for impleading third parties is permissible as any decree therein would not bind them and further it is al...
A. Subramanyam Vs. Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD529; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)671; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)567
ORDER1. This criminal petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in PR No.297/97-98 dated 19-8-1998 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Tirupathi in which a case has been registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 36(d) of the A.P. Excise Act, (for short 'the Act').2. It appears that on 19-8-1998, at about 8.50 p.m., when the Excise Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner, who is a licensee under Rule 23 of the A.P. Excise Rules for sate of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor and beer, he found that a person was consuming beer in the licenced premises of the petitioner situated at Tirupathi town. Onfinding this, the first information was recorded and presumably investigation was taken up. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even according to the first information report the petitioner never permitted the person concerned to consume the liquor in the li...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »