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.
E. Venkateswara Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushanam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT434
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This revision is filed against the order rejecting the application E.A. No. 478 of 4999 in E.P. No. 222 of 1999 purporting to have been filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC raising objection in respect of the properties attached. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the properties, which are attached includes movables like Fridge-, Almairah, Television, Cooler and two ceiling fans. He is the husband of the judgment-debtor against whom the decreeholder obtained decree for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note. The case of the petitioner is that the promissory note in question is much prior to their marriage and all the properties which are attached were purchased out of his own earnings and not by his wife, though he is her husband. The Court below dismissed the impugned application with a finding that 'I am inclined to believe that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was given T.V. and cooler by his employer and the claim- petitioner has not...
Gunda Venkata Ramana Vs. District Level Committee, Srikakulam and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD585; 2000(4)ALT623
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are highest bidders in the auction conducted to lease out the right to quarry sand in watercourses falling within the jurisdiction of respective Gram Panchayats in Srikakulam District All the petitioners are aggrieved by a Notification dated 30-5-2000 issued by the District Level Committee proposing to re-auction the right to quarry sand on 16-6-2000 in certain villages. In view of the fact that the notification impugned is the same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition No.9767 of 2000 may briefly be noticed.The first respondent, through its Member Convenor (third respondent herein), issued Sand Auction Notification dated 24-4-2000 in accordance with A.P. Panchayat Raj (Auction of Sand in Water Courses Vesting in Gram Panchayats) Rules, 2000 (hereafter ca...
V. Rajeshwar Rao Vs. N. Yadagiri Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD102; 2000(4)ALT366
ORDER1. This revision at the instance of the plaintiff is filed against the orders calling upon him to pay Court fee under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by filing the market value certificate of the properties in view of the subsequent amendments adding the prayers for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions made. Initially, the petitioner filed the suit in OS No.48 of 1990 on 29-1-1990 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with his possession over the suit land. Pending the suit, the petitioner sought interim injunction in IANo.102 of 1990 which was dismissed after hearing both the sides. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed in CMA No.27 of 1990 on 10-4-1991 granting injunction as sought for. These orders were confirmed by this Court in CRP No.2007 of 1991 by orders dated 2-9-1993. In another parallel suit in OS No.64 of 1987...
N. Krishnaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD72; 2000(4)ALT393; 2001CriLJ2972
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. In all the above writ petitions a common question of law is involved and therefore they are disposed of by a common order.WP No.3076 of 2000:The convict is the father of the petitioner herein. He was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act by the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur in Sessions Case No.105 of 1984 on 22-7-1985 and he is undergoing the sentence. Criminal Appeal No.672 of 1985 filed by the convict was dismissed. It is pleaded by him that he has undergone the sentence of 9 years 7 months and 20 daysand remand period of two months 26 days. Thus, the total sentence undergone by the convict is 13 years 2 months and 16 days including special remission given by the Government from time to time as on 26-1-2000. WP No. 5760 of 2000:The convict is the brother of the petitioner herein. He was tried by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Sessions Case No. 236...
State of A.P. and Another Vs. Crag MartIn Distillery Pvt. Ltd., Goa an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD213; 2000(5)ALT34
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J 1. The writ appeals are filed by the State against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15-3-1999 passed in WP Nos.7996 and 8338 of 1998 which were filed by Grag Martin Distillery Private Ltd., Goa and Swan Distilleries Private Limited, Goa respectively to quash G.O. Ms. No. 166, Revenue (Excise-11) Department, dated 18-3-1998 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the tender notification dated 20-3-1998 issued by the A.P. Beverages Corporation Ltd., pursuant to the said G.O. The parties in the writ appeals are referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions.2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petitions, briefly stated, are as follows:The Government in G.O. Ms. No.166, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 18-3-1998 as the Excise Policy for the year 1997-98 had come to an end by 31-3-1998 issued orders after the submission of the report by a Cabinet Sub-committee for the Excise Year 1998-99, whereunder certain guidelines were issued fo...
Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC168(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the garnishee notice dated November 5, 1999 in R.C. No. PJT/02/1/428/ 99-2000 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to implement the order of the appellate authority dated June 16, 1999 in Appeal No. P/6/99-2000, and to refund/adjust the excess tax collected from the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').2. The garnishee notice was issued in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000. It is stated at the Bar, at the time of hearing, that after filing of the writ petition the first respondent withdrew the garnishee notice.3. In the counter, the only reason given by the first respondent to withhold the refund is that the review orders are awaited from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax.4. Section 33-B of the Act deals with the refunds whereas Section 33-C of the Act dea...
Godekari Ragamma Vs. Vageneni Tirupati and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD98; 2000(4)ALT482
ORDER1. Can a Court refuse to record the evidence of a witness who is not willing to make an oath in the name of the God, but is ready and willing to make an affirmation?This is the question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition.2. The relevant facts, which are simple, are the following:The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in OS No.16 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kavali, which was instituted for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.3. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 and she wanted to examine the scribe of Ex.A1-Will, Sri Venkata Subbaiah, as PW2. When the said Sri Venkata Subbaiah refused to make an oath in the name of the God, the learned Senior Civil Judge did not permit him to give evidence and passed the impugned order dated 11-6-1998, whic...
Sk Johny and anr. Vs. State of A.P. Represented by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)176; 2000(4)ALT127
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Crl.Petition No.2478 of 2000 'We all, judges and lawyers, must restore our old faith and rekindle new hopes. The future is yours, men and women of law, take it and redeem yourselves'--Justice Sabyaschi Mukharji This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners are A2 and A3 in the said case.5. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief, it may be necessary to notice the background facts and circumstances leading to filing of this petition by the petitioners. Having regard to the question that falls for consideration, the facts in somewhat detail are to be noticed. The facts are tell-tale.6. One Mulakalapalli Appa Rao S/o. Somulu, R/o. Peda Gantyada, working as Kalasi in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant gave a report on 30-4-1999 in Steel Plant (Law & Order) Polic...
P. Sreerama Mohana Rao Vs. Commissioner, Rajahmundry Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALT430a
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner was working as a worker of Nominal Muster Roll (N.M.R.) in Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. According to him his services were disengaged on 30-11-1992 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for brevity), Therefore, he raised industrial dispute being I.D. No. 22 of 1996 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. The 1st respondent was set ex parte and an ex parte award was passed ordering reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages. As the petitioner was admittedly working as a worker of Nominal Muster Roll, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal denying continuity of service and back wages in the circumstances of the case is justified. Be that as it may, the award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on 7-2-1997 and the same was published on 11-3-1997 vide G.O. Rt. No. 593. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than 3 years. Therefore, I do...
E. Manu Swamy Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Kukatpally Depot, Hyd. and An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD595; 2000(4)ALT534
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in Id No.62 of 1992, which was published in the Gazette on 15-10-1994, the petitioner filed this writ petition (o the extent it went against his interest i.e., denying back wages while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service.2. The Labour Court having gone into the matter in depth passed the Award directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service and denied back wages as the petitioner failed to produce any evidence that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period under which he was out of service. Hence, I cannot find fault with the order of the Labour Court and accordingly it is confirmed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was kept under suspension on 22-10-1987 and he was removed from service on 22-9-1988 and for the said period the Corporation failed to pay Subsistence Allowance.4. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to find ...