Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Smt. K. Janaki Manoharan and anr. Vs. Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)283; 2000(4)ALT325; [2002]108CompCas899(AP); 2001CriLJ52
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 484 of 1999 on the file of the learned IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the said C. C.2. Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited filed C. C. No. 484 of 1999 on the file of the learned IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against Suryatronics Private Limited represented by its chairman and managing director in person and its other directors for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in their capacity as directors of Suryatronics Private Limited.3. It is the case of the complainant that it had invited tenders for design, engineering, manufacturing and supply of clarification plant, evaporation and boiling plants, cooling and part of curing equipm...
Banavath Chinna Munuswamy Vs. Madumpalle Peddamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT578
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This CRP arises out of an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the pure questions of fact. In addition, the learned Appellate Judge in para 13 of the order under revision has observed as under.'When both the appellant and respondent are, asserting that the other party is a benami under original sale deed of Ex.P-1, until and unless that aspect is decided, it cannot be conclusively held that the respondent is benami under Ex.P-1. Even assuming that the appellant had alone raised construction of the house on the vacant site standing in the name of both the persons i.e., appellant and respondent under Ex.P-1, he cannot expect to oust the respondent from the possession of the vacant side unless he proves that he had purchased it from the respondent or she had waived her right in the vacant site. When so many legal as...
Manoj Kumar JaIn Vs. Lalchand Ahuja
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD84
ORDER1. This is a revision preferred by the petitioner-landlord against the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 28th October, 1996 allowing RA No.244 of 1993 and setting aside the order of eviction dated 12th April, 1993 passed by the Rent Controller, Secunderabad inRCNo.58 of 1989.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the revision petition is set out as hereunder : The revision petitioner-land lord filed RC No.58 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from his premises bearing No.7-2-747 situate in General Market Street, Secunderabad on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). The respondent-tenant resisted the petition and contended that the petitioner-landlord does not require the premises and he does not have the experience in the jewellery business....
Sruthi Agencies, Hyderabad Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD92; 2000(5)ALT154
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to direct the Sales Tax Authorities to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.16.98 lakhs pending disposal of T.R.C. filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate Tribunal in TA No.776 of 1999. That appeal was filed questioning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division revising the assessment made for the year 1993-94 in exercise of the powers under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act. The revisional authority held that the petitioner purchased the goods viz., air coolers in the course of inter-State trade, took delivery of the goods fromthe common carrier pursuant to the endorsement made by out of State seller and then effected sales within the State. Thus, the sates effected by the petitioner were found to be first sales taxable under the Act whereas the contention of the petitioner has been that it is a second or subsequent sale of goods. The petitioner has also been ...
G. Narasimhulu Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD133; 2000(5)ALT163
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar, issued in Rc.No.A7/1249/2000 dated 10-5-2000 as illegal and arbitrary.2. The 1st respondent by the said proceedings dated 10-5-2000 issued a notice to the Chairman of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Mahabubnagar Group advising him to convene an emergency general body meeting to take a decision for bifurcation of TTCS and delete the village of Amistanpur, Palkonda and Chinnadarpally from the TCS Mahabubnagar group and submit the amendment proposals as required under Section 16 of APCS (Act 7 of 1964). It is further stated in the said notice that the emergency general body meeting noticeshould be issued immediately by giving 7 days as per Bye-law No.23 (A) by following the procedure laid down in Bye-law No.23 (1 to 3). Questioning the said notice, the Director of the Managing Committee of TTCS (groups of shops) filed this writ petition. ...
ipur Gram Panchayat, Guntur District Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD24; 2000(4)ALT678
ORDER1. The facts of these two cases are very interesting and from Secretary to down below every officer thinks that he can act as he likes without reference to the concerned statutes and rules made thereunder. It is not known whether the people miseries will be further increased or a day will come when good sense enter the minds of the bureaucracy.2. It is not in dispute that Rapalavari Tank is a minor irrigation tank situated within the local limits of Ipur Gram Panchayat and this tank vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 56(l)(b) of Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1994') corresponding section being Section 65(1)(b) of the old Act and the Gram panchayat is enjoying the income derived by leasing out the fishery rights in the tank as well as the bunds for grazing purposes and the income from the trees standing on the bunds. It is also not in dispute that the local Fishermen Co-operative Society which filed an application seeking permission of the Court ...
K. Vishnu Vs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, New D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD367; 2000(5)ALT166
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The second respondent herein filed a complaint before the National Consumer Redressal Commission (first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') against the petitioner who is an Advocate practising at Eluru seeking compensation of Rs.19,98,000/- and seeking return of the records and material papers in RCC No. 16 of 1987 and four other cases together with no objection endorsement on vakalats. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner failed to extend the services expected of him in ensuring the implementation of interim order passed by the Rent Controller and in conducting various cases pending in the Court of Rent Controller and other Civil Courts in Eluru, that he did not hand over the case records despite the payment of settled fee nor did he give no-objection certificate, thereby preventing him from conducting the cases either personally or through other advocates. In the process, he had to suspend the business. The respondent ...
Y. Appala Naidu and Others Vs. Assistant Engineer (Settlement), Se Rai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD269; 2000(5)ALT162
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition contends that the petitioners are threatened to be evicted on the ground that they have not paid the enhanced license fee with effect from 1986.3. The learned Counsel for therespondents contends that the respondent-Railways have absolute discretion to enhance the license fee by giving a notice of 30 days. It is admitted that notice in respect of enhancement of license fee was given in December, 1998 and the enhanced license fee was demanded to be paid with effect from January, 1999 and also the arrears. It is apparent that clause 17 of thelicense agreement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be interpreted to authorise the respondent to enhance the license fee retrospectively. The quantum of license fee is a matter of agreement between the parties. It is always open to the occupants not to agree to pay enhanced license fee and be prepared for the consequences namely quitting...
Ch. Gopala Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD652; 2001(1)ALT392
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring Section 3 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made by G.O. Ms. No. 515, dated, 17-8-1994 as unconstitutional. He also seeks to declare G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18-4-1995 and G.O. Ms. No.225, dated 11-4-1995 and the consequential order of the first respondent in G.O. Rt. No.763, dated 28-5-1998 as also the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc. 3843/95-G.1, dated 3-6-1998 as illegal, and arbitrary.2. On 21-7-1998, this Court while admitting the writ petition, passed the following interim order in WPMP No.20935 of 1998:'G.P. for Panchayat Raj takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and sought two weeks lime for filing counter. Prima facie the impugned order dated 28-5-1998 passed by the Government appears to be in violation of the orders passed by this Court in WP No. 10950 of 1995 dated 13-12-1996. As such, there shall be an interim suspension of the operation of the impugned order, pending further orders. However, the person in-charg...
L. Parthasarathi Vs. University of Hyderabad Rep. by Its Registrar and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALT627
N.V. Ramana, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that, the University of Hyderabad is running a school from LKG to SSC in its campus for the children of its employees. Petitioner was appointed, by the respondents by order dated 17.10.1994, as Sanskrit cum Telugu teacher in the school on temporary/part-time basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- per month, in a vacancy that arose due to resignation of one K.Srinivasa Sastry. Petitioner claims that at the time of his initial appointment he was having the qualification of B.A., B.Ed in Oriental Language and subsequently he acquired M.A. degree and so he is fully qualified to hold the post on regular basis. According to him, he is working from 9.30 a.m to 3.45 p.m by taking 6 to 7 teaching sessions daily on par with the other regularly appointed teachers. Ever since 1994, the petitioner is being continued on temporary basis with artificial breaks during vacations. He submits that he is working in the respondent-school with the hope th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »