Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
T. Gopalakrishna Murthi Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD750; 2000(5)ALT721
ORDERRama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judicial Officerof the rank of District and Sessions Judge,has filed this writ petition questioning theorder issued by the G.O. Rt.1563, Law,dated 9-11-1998 and seeks for a direction tosanction the entire amount of Rs.1,59,480/-claimed by him towards medicalreimbursement after deducting the amountof Rs.40,000/- sanctioned under theimpugned G.O. There is a further prayer tosanction the balance amount of Rs.6,097/-out of Rs.27,758/- claimed by him fortreatment at Care Hospital, Hyderabad onthe earlier occasion.2. The petitioner who fell ill during 1997-98 on account of triple vessel coronary artery disease and L.V. dysfunction was admitted into Madras Medical Mission Hospital in an emergent condition. He was hospitalised from 17-1-1998 to 29-1-1998 and bypass surgery was performed as seen from the Certificate issued by the Madras Medical Mission Hospital. The bills and certificate filed by him show that he paid charges of Rs. 1,59,480/- out ...
A.M. Agencies (In All) Vs. United Phsophorus Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)610; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)1
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. These Revision Cases arise out of the Judgements dated 12.04.1999 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal Nos.82 to 88 of 1998. The Criminal Appeals, in turn, have been preferred against the convictions and the sentences passed by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.Nos.15 to 19 of 1995; 89 & 90 of 1995. One set of revision cases have been filed by the complainant in Criminal Revision Case Nos.302, 437 to 442 of 2000 and the other set in Criminal Revision Case Nos.767 to 773 of 1999 have been filed by the accused. Since the parties are same in all these revision cases and common questions of law are involved, all these revision cases can be disposed of together.2. The factual matrix germane for effective adjudication of the points involved may be stated thus: The Criminal complaints were filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for brevity) by the complainant-...
M. Siva Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT402
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. In this writ petition the proceedings issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, dated 25-12-1997 placing the petitioner under suspension and initiating disciplinary proceedings are assailed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Executive Officer, Yadagirigutta Temple initially, which is the temple covered under Section 6(a) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. After appointment and after serving for certain period the petitioner was transferred to Srisailam Devasthanam in June 1997. While working at Srisailam Devasthanam, the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Executive Officer of Yadagirigutta temple by the impugned proceedings. The said proceedings are assailed on the ground that the 2nd respondent, Executive Officer of Yadagirigutta temple has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary pr...
Chief General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Bellampalli Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD695; 2000(5)ALT784
ORDER1. Questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal No.1 in ID No.85 of 1989 dated 19th day of November, 1993, wherein an award was passed declaring the action of the petitioner-Company interminating the services of the second respondent as Trammer with effect from 1-1-1989 as unjustified, the petitioner-Company filed the present writ petition.2. The facts of the case are that the second respondent was appointed as Trammer on 16-12-1957 and at that time his age was shown as 21 years. Subsequently, a bonus card was issued to him on 15-12-1958 which was marked as Ex.W1 wherein his age was shown as 22 years as on that date. At the time of the recruitment of the second respondent there were no rules relating to the age of retirement for the workmen in the petitioner-company. Subsequently, in the year 1960 the Company framed the Rules governing the fixation of age and superannuation of the Employees. Rules. Rule 3(iv and vi) of the Age Retirement Rules which are relevant for the purpos...
Mohd. AmeenuddIn Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD311; 2000(5)ALT127
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions have been filed questioning the judgments rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal relating to Teachers selection.2. A notification was issued on 4-7-2000 inviting applications for Teachers recruitment and the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the said notification in respect of local area specified therein treating the post as district-wise, prescription of maximum age of 36 years as on 1-7-1999, mode of computation of the said maximum age and imposition of annexing the copy of pass certificates of B.Ed. or equivalent examination.3. In Writ Petition Nos. 13389 and 13569 of 2000 the principal contention raised is that the President of India was not empowered to amend Para 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Presidential Order'). In addition, in WP No.13389 of 2000 the contention is that the sole...
Karan Khem Pharma Rep., by Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Karan Raj. Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)537; 2000(3)LS224
ORDERVaman Rao, J.1. Heard both sides.2. In this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the proceedings in CCNo.830 of 1996 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in which petitioner is arrayed as accused no.3 are sought to be quashed. 3. The relevant facts are as follows: The relevant facts are as follows:The complainant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act with its registered office at Sholapur , Maharashtra. They are engaged in the business of supply and sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals. Accused no.1 is a proprietary firm by name M/s. Mala Impex Pharama situated at Hyderabad. Accused no.2 Ms. Mala Jain is the proprietor of the accused no.1 firm. Accused no.3 M/s. Karan Khem Pharma is a firm represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Raj Karan. Accused nos.1 and 2 are the customers of the complainant who place an order through accused no.3 on 15.4.1998 to the complainant company for purchase of 100 kgs of Norfloxacin . The total bill amount o...
Kasturi Ratnam and ors. Vs. Thati Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)520
Vaman Rao, J. 1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 26-5-2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet in Crl.M.P.No. 1023 of 2000 in C.C.No.57 of 1996 under which the petition said to have been filed by the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for adding respondents 1 to 3 as accused was dismissed.2. The petitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Suryapet Police. The trial, in the case, is in progress and 8 witness have been examined. At this stage, on behalf of the petitioners, the said application was filed requesting the Court below to add respondents 1 to 3 as accused in this case on the ground that they were also partners of the firm Sri Kanaka Durga Chit Fund Company. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the version given to the police and also during the evidence given in the Court is that the partners of the ...
Dendu Venkata Ramanaiah Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALT556
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.2. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no authority or jurisdiction in law to interfere in any manner whatsoever to resolve any civil dispute. The law does not permit the Mandal Revenue Officer to resolve any such civil disputes even with noble intention to resolve the same. The Mandal Revenue Officer can exercise only such jurisdiction and power vested in him by or under the law.3. Admittedly, in the present case, there appears to be a serious civil dispute between the petitioner and one G. Laxmi Reddy, which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 340 of 1999 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, Evidently, the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot interfere to resolve any dispute, which may touch or have bearing upon the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No. 340 of 1999.4. However, in the counter-affid...
Life Insureance Corporation of India, Hyd. Vs. Regional Labour Commiss ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD450; 2000(5)ALT232; [2000(87)FLR522]; (2000)IILLJ1462AP
ORDER1. In these writ petitions, the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the LIC' for brevity) impugns the order of the controlling authority dated 21-9-1998, as confirmed by the appellate authority on 11-10-1999, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') directing payment of gratuity amount to the third respondent/employee. As the question that arises for consideration is the same and the petitioner is also the same, the writ petitions are being disposed by this common order.2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The respondent-employee served the LIC as Class-III employee and was promoted to Class-I later. The employee retired after a total service of 33 years. While calculating gratuity LIC followed its own rules, which resulted in payment 'of less amount. The employee preferred an application before the authority claiming the difference of amount towards gratuity. He alleged that the LIC is covered by the Act, that the LIC displayed the Act prominent...
Dr. S.A. Hakeem and Others Vs. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD733; 2000(5)ALT754
ORDER1. The seven Post-Graduate students of ENT of Gandhi Medical College (GMC), Hyderabad, are the petitioners. They seek a declaration that the theory and practical examinations of the second petitioner in MS and the first petitioner in Diploma in Otolaryngology (DLO) held in May, 2000, as vitiated by bias and malice and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to send the theory papers of petitioners 1 and 2 for revaluation to an independent examiner and for a further direction to conduct practical re-examination to petitioners to petitioners 1 and 2, without the fifth respondent as examiner. The first and second respondents are N.T.R University of Health Sciences and its Vice-Chancellor respectively. The third and fourth respondents are the Director of Medical Education (DME) and the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively and the fifth respondent is Professor and Head of the Department of ENT, GMC, who is impleaded in personal capacity.2. Petitioners 2, 3, 6 and 7 are the students of M....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »