Andhra Pradesh Court January 2001 Judgments

Pothireddi Sivaprasada Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(76)ECC760

Vaman Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed aganst the Judgment of the Special Judge to try the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Srikakulam dated 26.6.2000 rendered in S.C. No. 1 of 1998, under which the appellant-accused has been convicted for an offence under Secton 20(b)(i) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The case of the prosecution may be stated, briefly, as follows: On 3.9.1995 at about 5.00 a.m., PW-4, Ch. Jaganmohan the then Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Pathapatnam, in charge of Vasundhara check-post along with his staff, stopped the Orissa State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. O.R. 05/4046 plying from Malkanagiri to Berhampuram and checked ...

Pothireddi Sivaprasada Rao Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)484; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)239; 2001CriLJ1979

Vaman Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Special Judge to try the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-Ad-ditional District and Sessions Judge at Srikakulam dated 26-6-2000 rendered in S.C.No. 1 of 1998, under which the appellant-accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The case of the prosecution may be stated, briefly, as follows : On 3-9-1995 at about 5.00 a.m., PW-4, Ch. Jaganmohan the then Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Pathapatnam, in charge of Vasundhara check-post along with his staff, stopped the Orissa State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. OR. 05/4046 plying from Malkanagiri to Berhampuram and check...

Sri Krishna Oil Complex Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limite ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The complainant is a producer and exporter of castor oil. The complainant shipped 450 metric tonnes of castor oil from Bombay Port to be delivered at Rotterdam Port by steamer M.V. Stolt Sydness on 4.2.1991. The consignee was SELF C/o UNION MERCHANTS OVERSEAS, LONDON. The invoice for that consignment was raised on 1.2.1991 and the complainant insured the said consignment of 450 metric tonnes of castor oil with the opposite party i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited Insurance Company for short) under Marine Policy (Cargo) No. 2161040300111 issued in lieu of Cover Note No. 243151 dated 1.2.1991. The subject-matter insured was described as on consignment said to contain 450 MT of Castor Oil of first class grade despatched from Bombay Port to Rotterdam by ship and the amount insured was shown as Rs. 74,92,500/-, though the actual quantity shown in invoice dated 1.2.1991 was 440 M. Tonnes of Indian Cast...

K.M. Gopinath Pillai Vs. A.P. Transco and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(2)ALD180; 2001(1)ALT704

ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 8-11-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.15935 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat his service as 'on duty' from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement i.e., from 16-6-1978 to 17-8-1989 by fixing the notional increments has been dismissed.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension. Subsequently, by reason of an order passed in WP No.11545 of 1984, he was reinstated into service. A learned single Judge of this Court, in the said order, held that the appellant herein is entitled to special benefits for promotion, but without monetary benefits. Interpreting the said words, in the order under appeal, the learned single Judge held:'.....That means releasing of increments amounts to monetary benefits, for which the peti...

Yerram Venkata Reddy Vs. Commissioner and Director of School Education ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(2)ALD250; 2001(2)ALT276

ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to interpretation of Rule 4 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for the sake of brevity) framed under G.O. Ms. No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 1-1-1974, which reads thus-'4. Criteria of Establishment of Schools :--(1) The following shall be the broad guidelines to be considered for grant of permission for the establishment of new schools or up-gradation of existing schools- (a) Educational needs of the localities taking into consideration the population of the school goingchildren in the locality and their coverage by the existing schools; (b) Need to avoid unhealthy competition among the schools in the locality; (c) The viability of the proposed school after taking into consideration of the facts resolved to the clauses (a) and (b) above. The explanation appended to the R...

K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. P. Narayan

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD119; 2001(3)ALT110

ORDER1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He files this revision petition against the orders passed by the senior Civil Judge, Medak dated 4-8-2000 in IA No.248 of 1999 in OS No.34 of 1998 refusing to dismiss the counter-claim set up by the respondent-defendant in OS No.34 of 1998.2. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.34 of 1998 seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards civil damages with interest @ 18% per annumalleging that he rendered his technical know how and expertise to the defendant in developing his farm at Sangupet under Andole village limits. As certain disputes arose between the parties, the defendant lodged a complaint with CBCID which caused mental agony and humiliation to the plaintiff and also effected his reputation in public life as he is a respectable freedom fighter having unblemished character and narrating various facts which lead to the filing of the suit.3. The defendant filed a written statement by setting up a counter-claim f...

S.V. Surendra Rao (Since Died) and anr. Vs. Bharat Chandra, Secretary, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)522; 2001(3)ALT19

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This contempt case emanates out of an order dt. 7-6-1999 passed by this Court in W.P.NO. 8386 of 1999. By the said order in the writ petition direction was issued to respondents 2 and 3 to give effect to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt. 19-4-1994 passed in O.A.No. 2894 of 1992. The complaint of the writ petitioners was that even though the Administrative Tribunal has passed an order on 19-4-1994 and the same had become final it was not given effect to on account of which they are put to great hardship. It is apt to extract hereunder the relief granted by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.'(1) Substitution of PSO 107 by G.O.Ms.No. 585. Home dated 7-10-1991 is held to be invalid.(2) The list of Head Constables prepared in the year 1990 in various parts of the State in anticipation of G.O.Ms.No. 585 for sending them for training is held to be illegal and will not be operated any further. This will not affect the persons who have already succe...

Opts Marketing (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD561; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)312; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)205; 2001CriLJ1489

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J .1. One Mr. Eashwar M. Sajanani filed a private complaint against M/s. OPTS Marketing Private Limited and its Managing Director and the Chief Executive, alleging that on 3-7-1997 the Managing Director and the Chief Executives of M/s. OPTS Marketing Private Limited, had approached him for a hand loan of Rs.30,000/- for the urgent needs, representing that they had means to repay the amount, and dishonestly and deceptively induced him to part with Rs.30,000/- against two post-dated cheques for Rs.15,000/- each, drawn on State Bank of India, Lalaguda Branch, Secunderabad, and when those cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Inspite of notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheques, they have not repaid the amount and hence arc liable for punishment under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. On 5-1-1999 the learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to Ramgopalet Police Station, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC and directed the p...

G. Subba Naidu and Others Vs. Talluri Mahalakshmamma and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD572; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)324; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)187; 2001CriLJ1315

ORDERBilal Nazki, J1. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge. A private complaint was filed. The Magistrate passed an order on 27-9-1996 that :'Complainant present - Perused the record. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 302 Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. In view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr.PC the complainant has to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. Hence call on 23-10-1996 for the examination of further witnesses.'Some of the witnesses cited were thereafter examined. On 6-6-1997 the Court passed the following order.'Complainant is present - Complainant and accused submitted that there are no further witnesses to be examined on her behalf. Hence the case is posted for consideration to 13-6-1997.'Then the case was posted for consideration on 13-6-1997 and on 16-6-1997 the following order was passed:'Complainant is present - Perused the record and statements. There is p...

V. Bangaru Chetty Vs. A. Govinda Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(2)ALD140; 2001(2)ALT199

1. This revision application is directed against a judgment dated 6th October, 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in RCC 15 of 1992 by the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor, was reversed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner herein is the landlord. He filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act') inter alia on the grounds of default, acts of waste and bona fide requirement.2. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the materials placed before him, arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the ground of personal requirement is not tenable. He, however, decreed the suit on the ground that the respondent-tenant herein wilfully committed default in payment of rent for the period from February, 199...