Andhra Pradesh Court October 2001 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.
Munakkayala Konda Reddy and ors. Vs. Thallam Venkata Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT343a
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 3-8-2001 has referred the matter - whether the question of res judicata is bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force within the meaning of Order 14 Rule 2 (2) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code').FACTS:2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the suit for injunction. It was contended that earlier, Original Suit No. 655 of 1980 was filed by the vendors of the defendants-petitioners herein on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Rajampet for declaration of title and injunction for the self-same property. When the suit was dismissed, an appeal -being A.S.No. 40 of 1985, was preferred thereagainst which was allowed by an order dated 28-7-1986. Assailing the same, second appeal was filed before this Court which was marked as S.A.No. 58 of 1987 and the same was dismissed on 31-8-1998.3. The contention of the defendants-petitioners herein, therefore, is that O.S.No. 70 of 1992 ...
Pasarlapudi Choultry, Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs. Kadali Sriniva ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT333
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. These six Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Judgments in Small Cause Suit Nos. 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 25 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole.2. In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the unsuccessful plaintiff - Pasarlapudi Choultry - represented by its Executive Officer is the revision petitioner and different tenants under the Institution figure as respondents in all these Civil Revision Petitions. The suits are filed for recovery of arrears of rent from the respective respondents-defendants in these suits on the ground that they are cultivating tenants and they are liable to pay the rents. The respective defendants had filed the written statements denying the averments in the respective plaints and also denying the title of the plaintiff-choultry and claiming title by adverse possession as well. In all these matters, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration:...
Y.S.C. Babu Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN88(AP)
ORDERNayak, J.The petitioner in W.P. No. 14201 of 2001 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 14218 of 2001 worked as Deputy Chief Officer (Inspection) and Manager (Audit), respectively, in the establishment of the Syndicate Bank and both of them took voluntary retirement under Syndicate Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (VRS), which scheme is approved by the Government of India. In terms of the said scheme, a total sum of Rs. 9.44 lakhs is payable to the petitioner in W.P. No. 14201 of 2001 whereas a sum of Rs. 10,59,530 is payable to the petitioner in W.P. No. 14218 of 2001 as ex gratia/compensation. Out of the said sums of money payable to the petitioners, only 50 per cent of the compensation, i.e., Rs. 4.72 lakhs to the petitioner in W.P. No. 14201 of 2001 and Rs. 5,29,765 to the petitioner in W.P. No. 14218 of 2001, has to be paid within 30 days of relief and the balance of 50 per cent of compensation is payable in five equal annual instalments with interest at 10 per cent ...
Replica Agencies, Hyd. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD194
S. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This Tax Revision Case is filed by the dealer, aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA No.576 of 1993, dated 14.7.1994 for the assessment year 1986-87. The dispute in this tax revision case is 'Whether the Xerox machine is to be considered as duplicating machine, falling under Entry-12 of the First Schedule or to be treated as one falling under 'all kinds of machinery' specified under Entry-83 of the First Schedule?'.2. The Petitioner - M/s. Replica Agencies, is a dealer in Xerox machines andtheir parts. During the assessment year 1986-87 the assessing authority subjected the disputed turnover of Rs.6,73,604/- to tax treating the Xerox machines and their parts as 'machinery parts' failing under Entry 83 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Deputy Commissioner, however, revised the said order and treated the Xerox machines as duplicating machines, falling under ...
V. Mohan Rao Vs. Implementation Secretariat and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD386; 2002(2)ALT822
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3-9-2001 made in WP No. 17677 of 2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The Implementation Secretariat represented by its Transaction Advisor, Public Enterprises Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, invited tenders for sale of Sri Hanuman Co-operative Sugars Limited, assets and business at Seri Narasannapalem, Hanuman Junction. The last date for receipt of tenders was 2-7-2001. A pre-bid conference was held on 25-6-2001. Sixteen (16) parties registered their interest, but only three tenders were received on 2-7-2001. The technical and commercial bids were opened on 2-7-2001. Three tenders, including that of the petitioner-appellant and the 2nd respondent were qualified for further consideration. The financial and price bids were opened on 11-7-2001. The 2nd respondent, as allowed by clause (7) of Annexure II (Form of Price bid) o...
Deputy Inspector-general of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool and ors. Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD418; 2002(3)ALT110; [2002(92)FLR368]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Termination of his probation was questioned by the respondent herein before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. His prayer before the Tribunal was:To grant appropriate relief declaring the proceedings C.No. C1/425/99 ROC No. 14/ 2000 dated 7-1-2000 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice and ultra vires to Rule 11-A(2) Rule 11(d) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and quash the same and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to declare the probationof the applicant and regularise his services.Facts:2. It is not in dispute that the respondent has not completed 2 years period of duty within a continuous period of 3 years of probation. A show-cause notice was issued upon him on 23-10-1999 as to why his probation should not be terminated under Rule 17(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (for shor...
D.V.R.S.G. Dattatreyulu Vs. Ex-officio Principal Secretary, Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD816; 2002(1)ALT23; [2002(93)FLR19]
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The question as regards interpretation of Section 11(e) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 arises for consideration in this writ application. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10-4-2001 issued by the Registrar, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby he has been communicated with the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is in the following terms: 'After examining the recommendation of the said Committee, Government have observed that under Section 11(e) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 a Member (other than the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of any Tribunal) on ceasing to hold office shall not be eligible for any other employment either under Government of India or under the State Government. As such, Sri D.V.R.S.G. Dattatreyulu, who was a member of CAT is not eligible to become a Member of the State Commission.' 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner practised as an Advocate...
T. Zakraiah and ors. Vs. A.P.S.C. Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD549; 2001(6)ALT514; (2002)IVLLJ116AP
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. All these Writ petitions involving similar questions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working either as NMR Non-Technical Work Inspectors or Attenders in the District Scheduled Co-operative Society Ltd., Guntur District, Guntur.3. The petitioners 1 and 3 in WP No. 16236 of 2000 were appointed as Non-Technical Inspectors w.e.f. 1-9-1991 and 1-2-1992 respectively while the 2nd petitioner was appointed as attender on 1-4-1991. After completion of five years' of service, they made a representation to the respondents for regularisation of their services as per G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994. As their requests were not acceded to, they filed WP Nos. 6142/98, 7440 of 1998 and 6810 of 1998 respectively and a learned single Judge of this Court upon noticing the decision of the Apex Court in District Collector v. M.L. Singh, , directed the respondents to regularise the serv...
G. Rushikeshwara Rao Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Industries Ltd., Hyd. an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD767; [2002(92)FLR964]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court-1, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 8.12.1993 in I.D. No. 72 of 1986 confirming the order-dated 14.12.1985 of the 1st respondent dismissing the petitioner-workman from service.2. Briefly noted, the facts are: The petitioner was appointed as General worker in the 1st respondent Company on 24.12.1968 and at the time of dismissal from service he was working as B-11 worker. On 6.2.1984 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on the ground that he was absent without leave for 107 days in the year 1983. On 13.2.1984, the petitioner submitted explanation stating that he submitted ESI certificates issued by the Medical officer from time to time. He reported for duty on 15.12.1984. On 29.1.1985 when another charge sheet for his absence from duty for a period of 185 days during the calendar year 1984 was sought to be served, petitioner declined to receive the same. Therefore, a third charge sheet was iss...
Abothula Rajaratnam Naidu Vs. Nizam Sugar Industries, Represented by I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT397
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.2000 passed in I.A. No. 195 of 2000 in O.S. No. 19 of 1993 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to try the first issue as preliminary issue, as the said issue relate to the jurisdiction of the Court and also relates to the bar relating to the filing of the suits OS No. 48 of 1982 and 49/82 (Old OS Nos. 37 and 38 of 1987) filed under Secs. 7, 7-A(1), 7-A(6), 8(2), 8(8) and 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and also Section 18 of the Industries (Development and Regulation)Act, 1951 2. The above suit was filed by the petitioner before the Vacation Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, as OS No. 19 of 1993 for declaration that the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bobbili, in OS Nos. 37 and 38 of 1987 are not binding upon him and sought...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »