Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Vs. Aditya Prata ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD582; 2001(6)ALT433
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a statewide Association. It is registered and established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the object of safeguarding the rights of the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes and espouse their cause in regard to their employment. Complaining fraud and misrepresentation the association filed this writ petition praying for a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus, holding that the appointment of the first respondent herein to the post of District and Sessions Judge, is void, unconstitutional, and also for a prayer to set aside the same.2. When the writ petition was listed before this Full Bench on 27-3-2001, it was brought to our notice that the first respondent filed W.P No. 18031 of 1999 questioning a show cause notice dated 16-8-1999, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Parvathipuram (MRO), calling upon him to show cause as to why his application forissuance of Caste Certificate to his children and other family members as belonging to '...
K. Appa Rao Vs. Gade Suseela
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD129; 2001(6)ALT233a
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the judgment-debtor. The respondent herein was the decree-holder. The respondent herein had instituted Small Cause No. 13 of 1997 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed. Thereafter the decree-holder filed E.P.No.68 of 1998 in S.C.No.13 of 1998 with a prayer to attach immovable property of the petitioner herein. The said petition was ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.2. To-day the matter came up for admission. It is seen that the decree was passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, who was exercising the powers of Small Cause Court in a small cause suit. Therefore, under Order 50, Rule 1(a)(ii) C.P.C., the Court exercising the powers under the Small Cause Courts Act and the Small Cause Court passing money decree cannot put the immoveable property to sale. Hence, this Court holds that the order passed by the ...
A.P. Power Transmission Corporation, Hyd. and ors. Vs. Mohd. Khaleel P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD708; 2001(6)ALT623; [2002(92)FLR1209]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal is before us, in view of the reference made by a Division Bench of this Court observing:A contention has been raised with regard to the correctness or applicability of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. v. R. VENKATA RAMANA AND ORS. : 1999(3)ALD337 in the light of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and in terms of the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No. 107, Women Development, Child Welfare and Labour (Labour-II) Department, dated 31-10-1998,under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the said decision requires reconsideration, in the light of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as to whether in relation to the scheme issued by the appellant-Board vide B.P. (P&G-Per;) Ms.No. 36, dated 18-05-19...
Yeru Andi Jiyanna Vs. the State of A.P., Rep., by Its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT507
Bilal Nazki, J.1. These writ petitions raise same question of law and fact and are disposed of by common judgment.2. In these writ petitions Section 1 (2), Section 2 (ii) (a) and Section 3 of the A.P. Water Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997 have been challenged as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are the agriculturists in different villages and the lands belonging to them are wet lands. The State of Andhra Pradesh passed an Act being A.P. Water Tax, 1988 to rationalise levy and collection of water taxes in the State. The said Act was passed to levy water tax in respect of the land receiving water for irrigation from Governmental sources of irrigation. The Act has come into force retrospectively from 1.7.1986.After the Act came into force, the lands were notified by a notification in different categories. This Act was amended by an Ordinance on 2.1.1997. This Ordinance was then replaced by the Act of the State Legislature kn...
Triveni K.S. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT223; (2002)IIILLJ320AP
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The bone of contention in this writ petition is the restriction placed on employment of women in Factories under Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The restriction imposed has been challenged primarily on the ground that it is discriminatory on the basis of sex and therefore ultra vires. Section 66(1)(b) of the Act lays down:'(b) No woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Provided that State Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette, in respect of any factory or group or class or description of factories vary the limits laid down in Clause (b), but so that no such variation shall authorise the employment of any woman between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.' 2. On perusal of Section 66 of the Act the following tilings become clear, that no woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. There i...
Masti Venkata Krishna Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. Prabhala Satyavathi and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC199
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.L.N.G.K. Murthy and Mr. M. Ram Mohan representing Mr. M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, the counsel representing the respective parties.The dispute relates to the execution of a maintenance decree. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor No.14 in E.P.No.28/99 in O.S.No.282/72 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole. The decree-holder filed E.P.NO.28/99 under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 C.P.C. for sale of charged property for realization of the decretal amount with subsequent interest and costs. The revision petitioner had filed a counter raising the question regarding the liability of the 13th defendant ahead of the 14th defendant i.e., the present revision petitioner. The Court below had overruled the objections raised by the revision petitioner-14th judgment debtor and had posted the E.P. for settlement of terms and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner. 2. The facts in brief are that one Must...
G. Lakshmana Rao Vs. District Collector-chairman, Selection Committee ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT208
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. Respondent No. 4 herein filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. She sought setting aside of appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Pharmacist Grade-II on the ground that the Writ petitioner was not eligible for the post. The applicant contended that she was eligible under rules and she should have been appointed. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, set aside the appointment of the Writ petitioner and directed the Selection Committee to make fresh selection to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II by considering the case of the applicant with other eligible candidates. Thereafter, the Writ petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Tribunal which was also dismissed by an order dated 5th May, 1998. The petitioner filed a Writ petition against that order also i.e., Writ Petition No. 17246 of 1998. This writ petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Co...
Karampuri Laxmi Vs. Karampuri Lachavva and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD636; 2002(2)ALT36
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court below dismissing IA No. 394 of 2000 filed by the wife of defendant No. 2 in IA No. 382 of 2000 in OS No. 144 of 2000.2. The petitioner herein filed IA No. 394 of 2000 not to extend the injunction order granted earlier and the same be dropped on the ground that her husband who is defendant No. 2 in the suit left to Gulf Country on 7-11-2000; that the suit filed for permanent injunction in respect of house bearing No. 6-5, Shathrajpalli village, Vemulavada Mandal against defendant No. 2 is not maintainable on the ground that the service of summons, notices and injunction order on the petitioner herein are not valid service.3. The suit was filed on 16-11-2000 and on the same day, the Court below granted temporary injunction and ordered notice. The process server who was entrusted with the service of injunction orders, notice and summons reported that it was represented to him that the 2nd defendant who is the...
Venkayala Bhadram Vs. Noni Venkata Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD341
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 51 of 1996 aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit as barred by limitation.2. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1376/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1993 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800/- repayable with interest at Rs. 2-00 per month and for subsequent interest and costs. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff on 7-8-1996.3. One of the contentions advanced by the defendant was that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, in the written statement the defendant contended that he has paid the amount at the rate of Rs. 80/-per month towards penal interest and another sum of Rs. 400/- during Dasara 1995 towards principal and therefore contended that he had discharged the promissory note executed by him in favour of the plaintiff.4. The Court below without deciding the genuineness or otherwise of the...
Rainbow Children's Medicare (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT372; [2002]126STC418(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1987 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses (Amendment) Act (Amendment Act 28 of 1996) in so far as it relates to the levy of luxuries tax on corporate hospitals.2. The petitioner is Rainbow Children's Medicare (P) Limited, and it is a private limited company and is running a children's hospital established in the year 1998 with all modern medical equipments making use of the services of highly trained medical professionals. The main object of the petitioner, it is stated, is to provide paediatric and neo natal services to the people at large. It is also stated that the management of the hospital has made provision to render medical services to poor and needy by free/concessional services.3. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vigilance and Enforceme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›